National Park Service
U.S. Department of the Interior
,»>"
Jefferson National Expansion Memorial
Cultural Landscape Report / May 2010
i
.
"X % % %
'
;
w«
i
j] ■ -
._; 1
f:.
jb
>
■
.
CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT
JEFFERSON NATIONAL EXPANSION MEMORIAL
ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI
MAY 2010
PREPARED FOR NATIONAL PARK SERVICE
MIDWEST REGIONAL OFFICE
OMAHA, NEBRASKA
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The 2010 update of this Cultural Landscape Report was prepared by AECOM, Charlottesville,
Virginia. The initial 1996 edition of this Cultural Landscape Report was prepared by Historical
Landscape Architect Regina M. Bellavia, Midwest Field Area, National Park Service. The Saarinen/
Kiley design collaboration history was prepared in 1996 by Landscape Architect Consultant Gregg
Bleam, Charlottesville, Virginia.
AECOM, Inc.
Robert McGinnis, RLA, ASLA, Project Director
Adriane Fowler, RLA, LEED AP, Project Manager
Laura Bandara, ASLA, Project Designer
Eric Wright, Planner
Jennifer O'Brien, Graphic Designer
National Park Service
Midwest Regional Office
Bill Harlow, Chief, Historic Architecture and Landscapes
Maria McEnaney, Historical Landscape Architect
Sandra Washington, Chief, Planning and Compliance
Ian Shanklin, Landscape Architect
Jefferson National Expansion Memorial
Tom Bradley, Superintendent
Frank Mares, Deputy Superintendent
Bob Moore, Park Historian
Jim Jacobs, Gardener Supervisor
Ann Honious, Chief, Museum Services and Interpretation
Kathryn Thomas, Museum Curator
JEFFERSON NATIONAL EXPANSION MEMORIAL CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT
PREFACE TO 2010 UPDATE
This Cultural Landscape Report for Jefferson National Expansion Memorial represents an effort
undertaken in 2010 to update a Cultural Landscape Report that was originally produced in 1996.
The update was completed by AECOM under contract with the National Park Service. The project
team worked in close coordination with National Park Service Midwest Region and Memorial
personnel to prepare this update.
In 2010, the original Cultural Landscape Report was nearly 15 years old and had provided years
of valuable guidance for the Memorial landscape. However, it was determined to be in need of
an update to address changes in the current conditions and management issues at the Memorial
and thus continue to provide effective guidance. This update builds on the 1996 report's research,
documentation, evaluations, findings, and recommendations, and provides additional material
such as an expanded discussion of significance and descriptions of features.
A major milestone for the Memorial occurred with the completion of a General Management Plan
(GMP) in 2009. The updated Cultural Landscape Report provides a framework for evaluating
future design proposals that may occur as part of the implementation of the GMP's Preferred
Alternative, as well as specific recommendations for implementing the Preferred Alternative with
minimal impact on the cultural landscape of the Memorial grounds.
The Cultural Landscape Report update:
• Clarifies, enhances, and refines the 1996 edition, including its finding that design intent is
a critical factor in evaluating the historical significance of the Memorial's landscape;
• Clarifies the rationale for significance based on design intent, and identifies contributing
features;
• Expands the discussion of significance, design intent, and character utilizing information
and frameworks based on post-1996 advances in cultural landscape research,
documentation, analysis, and treatment approaches relating to mid-twentieth-century
Modern design;
• Provides a benchmark for compatibility for any future rehabilitation actions or additions/
changes to the landscape;
• Includes treatment recommendations using rehabilitation standards to provide a
framework for how the landscape should be managed in the future; and
• Provides background information to assist in the appropriate implementation of the
2009 General Management Plan Preferred Alternative in a manner that is consistent with
the standards for rehabilitation and clearly defines compatibility, character, and other
cultural landscape concepts for the Memorial landscape for the use of site managers and
designers.
JEFFERSON NATIONAL EXPANSION MEMORIAL CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT
THIS PAGE LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK JEFFERSON NATIONAL EXPANSION MEMORIAL CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Chapter 1: Introduction
Summary of Findings 1-4
Administrative Context 1-6
Organization of Report 1-8
Chapter 2: Site Physical History
Introduction 2-1
Physical History of the Landscape 2-54
Chapter 3: Existing Conditions
Environmental Context 3-1
Landscape Setting 3-2
Spatial Organization 3-3
Topography 3-5
Views and Vistas 3-7
Buildings and Structures 3-8
Vegetation 3-12
Circulation 3-14
Constructed Water Features 3-18
Small-Scale Features 3-18
Other Management Concerns 3-22
Chapter 4: Analysis and Evaluation
Significance Evaluation 4-1
Comparative Analysis of Historic and Existing
Landscape Conditions by Characteristic 4-6
Assessment of Integrity 4-43
Chapter 5: Treatment Recommendations
Introduction 5-1
Treatment Approaches for the Cultural Landscape 5-3
Treatment Concept for the Memorial 5-5
Guidelines for Rehabilitation 5-10
General Recommendations 5-11
Recommendations for Landscape Treatment by Characteristic 5-13
Chapter 6: Implementation Projects
Identification and Description of Treatment Projects 6-1
Deficiencies and Project Descriptions 6-3
Phasing Chart of Projects 6-20
Selected Bibliography Bib-1
Appendices
Appendix A: List of Landscape Contracts & Contractors A-l
Appendix B: Sample Inventory and Condition Assessment Forms B-l
Appendix C: List of Repositories and People Consulted C-l
Appendix D: Copy of National Register Nomination Form D-l
JEFFERSON NATIONAL EXPANSION MEMORIAL CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT
LIST OF FIGURES
Chapter 1
Figure 1.1 Location map showing the regional context of the Memorial 1-2
Figure 1.2 Map showing the vicinity and urban context of the Memorial 1-3
Chapter 2
Figure 2.1. 1796 map of St. Louis 2-1
Figure 2.2. St. Louis Riverfront, 1852 2-2
Figure 2.3. National Park Service "Plan 8009," 1937 2-3
Figure 2.4. Elevated railroad tracks along the levee in St. Louis, c. 1935 2-4
Figure 2.5. Restored Old Rock House, c. 1943 2-6
Figure 2.6. Old Cathedral, c. 1939 2-6
Figure 2.7. Old Courthouse, c. 1939 2-6
Figure 2.8. St. Louis riverfront after demolition of warehouses, c. 1942 2-7
Figure 2.9. Map of a portion of the St. Louis waterfront, c. 1936 2-8
Figure 2.10. Eero Saarinen's Stage One submission, plan view, 1947 2-12
Figure 2.11. Eero Saarinen's Stage One submission, perspective, axonometric and
other views, 1947 2-13
Figure 2.12. Eero Saarinen's winning competition entry, plan view, 1948 2-16
Figure 2.13. Eero Saarinen's winning competition entry, perspective rendering,
1948 2-18
Figure 2.14. Eero Saarinen & Associates, early railroad study, 1949 2-20
Figure 2.15. Eero Saarinen & Associates, site plan studies 1957 2-22
Figure 2.16. Eero Saarinen & Associates, site plan studies, 1957 2-23
Figure 2.17. Eero Saarinen & Associates, site plan with 2-foot contour interval,
drawing 1 of 4, October, 1957 2-24
Figure 2.18. Eero Saarinen & Associates, section through axis from Old
Courthouse to river, drawing 2 of 4, October, 1957 2-24
Figure 2.19. Eero Saarinen & Associates, plan and profile of proposed
design for relocated railroad tracks, drawing 4 of 4, October, 1957 2-25
Figure 2.20. Section detail through proposed design for grand staircase,
November 1960 2-26
Figure 2.21. Eero Saarinen & Associates, design developmentsite plan,
April 1959 2-29
Figure 2.22. Office of Dan Kiley schematic planting plan, February 1960 2-32
Figure 2.23. Office of Dan Kiley, sectional studies, Febrruary 1960 2-33
Figure 2.24. Eero Saarinen & Associates, revised site plan, August 1960 2-33
Figure 2.25. Office of Dan Kiley, planting plan of areas adjacent to railroad cuts,
August 1960 2-33
Figure 2.26. Office of Dan Kiley, schematic planting plan, December 1961 2-36
Figure 2.27. Office of Dan Kiley, design development plan (watercolor),
December 1962 2-37
Figure 2.28. Office of Dan Kiley, "Approach to Gateway Arch from
Southwest, Summer," design development drawing, December 1962 2-38
Figure 2.29. Office of Dan Kiley, "Wharf Street Looking North, Autumn," design
development drawing, December 1962 2-38
Figure 2.30. Office of Dan Kiley, "View Towards Arch from C-C," design
development drawing, December 1962. (JNEM Archives, uncatalogued collection)2-39
Figure 2.31. Office of Dan Kiley, "View from East St. Louis," design development
drawing, December 1962 2-40
Figure 2.32. Office of Dan Kiley, section and plan details of walks and tulip poplar
plantings, design development drawing, March 1963 2-41
JEFFERSON NATIONAL EXPANSION MEMORIAL CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT
Figure 2.33. Office of Dan Kiley, study sketches of proposed views within
the Jefferson National Expansion Memorial, September 1963 2-42
Figure 2.34. Office of Dan Kiley, final conceptual planting plan, 1964 2-43
Figure 2.35. Office of Dan Kiley, final conceptual planting plan, 1964. The
National Park Service approved this plan in February 1966 2-45
Figure 2.36. Limits of construction, Phase I 2-47
Figure 2.37. Limits of Phase I planting plan 2-48
Figure 2.38. Comparison of plant lists from 1964 and 1978 2-51
Figure 2.39. Harland Bartholomew & Associates, sketch of proposed pedestrian
overpasses, 1975 2-53
Figure 2.40. Phased development of grand staircase as proposed by HB&A 2-54
Figure 2.41. Architect's drawing of Riverfront Garden 2-55
Figure 2.42. Construction of railroad open cut walls and tunnel, 1960 2-56
Figure 2.43. Construction of north overlook, 1961 2-57
Figure 2.44. The final section of Gateway Arch is put in place, October 28, 1965 2-58
Figure 2.45. Aerial view of Memorial grounds after Phase I of landscape
construction, 1975 2-61
Figure 2.46. Construction detail of walk lighting 2-62
Figure 2.47. The Gateway Arch parking garage 2-64
Figure 2.48. Period Plan, 1959 - 1968 2-81
Figure 2.49. Period Plan, 1969 - 1973 2-83
Figure 2.50. Period Plan, 1974 - 1977 2-85
Figure 2.51. Period Plan, 1978-1985 2-87
Figure 2.52. Period Plan, 1986 - 1996 2-89
Figure 2.53. Period Plan, 1997 - 2009 2-91
Chapter 3
Figure 3.1 View along walk between north triangle and northeast plaza.
Note lights and single-species tree planting 3-3
Figure 3.2. View along walk in southern part of Memorial grounds;
note single-species tree planting , tree grates, and lights 3-3
Figure 3.3. View of Gateway Arch across south pond from southwest
baldcypress circle 3-4
Figure 3.4. View across Luther Ely Smith Square to Gateway Arch 3-5
Figure 3.5. The Old Courthouse 3-5
Figure 3.6. View of the side of the Gateway Arch from the north triangle 3-5
Figure 3.7. The south pond 3-6
Figure 3.8. Aberm creates a visual base for the Old Courthhouse when
viewed from below the Gateway Arch 3-6
Figure 3.9. Landform and vegetation create frames for views of Gateway Arch
from the south pond 3-6
Figure 3.10. View from the Old Courthouse to the Gateway Arch 3-7
Figure 3.11. View along the north-south axis, from the south triangle to the
Gateway Arch 3-7
Figure 3.12. View of the Memorial from East St. Louis 3-7
Figure 3.13. View to East St. Louis from the Memorial's north overlook.
Note the fountain and grain elevator 3-7
Figure 3.14. View towards the Gateway Arch from the south overlook 3-8
Figure 3.15. Partially screened view to maintenance facility. 3-8
Figure 3.16. The Old Cathedral 3-8
Figure 3.17. The Old Courthouse 3-9
Figure 3.18. The maintenance facility. 3-9
Figure 3.19. Parking garage along Washington Avenue 3-9
Figure 3.20. South overlook floodwall seen from Poplar Street 3-10
JEFFERSON NATIONAL EXPANSION MEMORIAL CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT
CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT
Figure 3.21. North overlook plaza 3-10
Figure 3.22. North overlook wall 3-10
Figure 3.23. North overlook plaza repaved area with cracking 3-10
Figure 3.24. Damage along north overlook staircase 3-11
Figure 3.25. Drainage problem at north overlook staircase 3-11
Figure 3.26. South overlook staircase 3-11
Figure 3.27. Weeping at base of south overlook floodwall 3-11
Figure 3.27. Railroad tunnel entrance from above 3-12
Figure 3.28. The grand staircase from Leonor K. Sullivan Boulevard 3-12
Figure 3.29. View of the river from the top of the grand staircase 3-12
Figure 3.30. Baldcypress circle 3-13
Figure 3.31. Railroad tunnel plantings 3-13
Figure 3.32. Wintercreeper groundcover 3-14
Figure 3.34. Mismatched concrete paving types along the Memorial perimeter 3-15
Figure 3.35. Poor drainage on walk near southwest entrance 3-16
Figure 3.36. Gateway Arch ramp expansion joint 3-16
Figure 3.37. Gateway Arch ramp 3-16
Figure 3.38. Interior road to south service area 3-17
Figure 3.39. Washington Avenue 3-17
Figure 3.40. Memorial Drive 3-17
Figure 3.41. Leonor K. Sullivan Boulevard 3-17
Figure 3.42. Curb cuts along Memorial Drive 3-18
Figure 3.43. Typical concrete bench 3-18
Figure 3.44. Handrails and concrete damage at the steps alongside
the Gateway Arch entrance ramps 3-19
Figure 3.45. Information kiosk 3-20
Figure 3.46. Entrance sign 3-20
Figure 3.47. Bollards 3-21
Figure 3.48. Tree grate 3-21
Figure 3.49. Representative drainage problem along walks 3-25
Figure 3.50. Representative drainage problem along walks 3-25
Figure 3.51. Erosion along slopes above the south pond 3-25
Figure 3.52. Existing Conditions 3-29
Chapter 4
Figure 4.1. Office of Dan Kiley, 'Approach to Gateway Arch from Southwest,
Summer," design development drawing, December 1962 4-11
Figure 4.2. Approach to the Gateway Arch from the southwest, 2009 4-11
Figure 4.3. Office of Dan Kiley, design development perspective sketch of the view
of the Gateway Arch across a pond, September 1963 4-13
Figure 4.4. Pond edge, 2009 4-13
Figure 4.5. HB& A design development sketch of proposed ped. overpasses, 1975... 4-14
Figure 4.6. View across Luther Ely Smith Square, 2009 4-14
Figure 4.7. Studies of the proposed pedestrian overpasses 4-15
Figure 4.8. Studies of the proposed pedestrian overpasses 4-16
Figure 4.9 Office of Dan Kiley, "View Towards Arch from C-C," design
development drawing, December 1962 4-17
Figure 4.10. View to Gateway Arch along north-south axis, 2009 4-17
Figure 4.11. Office of Dan Kiley, design development perspective sketch of
the view of the Gateway Arch across one of the ponds, September 1963 4-18
Figure 4.12. View to the Gateway Arch across the south pond, 2009 4-18
Figure 4.13. Office of Dan Kiley, "View from East St. Louis," design development
drawing, December 1962 4-19
Figure 4.14. View to Gateway Arch from East St. Louis, 2009 4-19
JEFFERSON NATIONAL EXPANSION MEMORIAL CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT
Figure 4.15. Old Courthouse, 1939 4-21
Figure 4.16. Old Courthouse, 2009 4-21
Figure 4.17. Section detail through grand staircase, November 1960 4-23
Figure 4.18. Office of Dan Kiley, "Approach to Gateway Arch from South,
Winter," design development drawing, December 1962 4-26
Figure 4.19. Approach to Gateway Arch from north, 2009 4-26
Figure 4.20. Comparison of canopy tree profiles, Kiley plan and NPS plan 4-27
Figure 4.21. Rosehill ash profile 4-28
Figure 4.22. Tulip poplar profile 4-28
Figure 4.23. Sketch of proposed view to the Gateway Arch from baldcypress
circle, Office of Dan Kiley, Sept. 1963 4-29
Figure 4.24. View to Gateway Arch from baldcypress circle, 2009 4-29
Figure 4.25. Detail of south pond plantings, Kiley final conceptual planting plan,
1964 4-30
Figure 4.26. Detail of south pond plantings, existing conditions, 2009 4-30
Figure 4.27. Kiley-designed pond configuration 4-35
Figure 4.28. National Park Service as-built pond configuration, c. 1996 4-35
Figure 4.29. Eero Saarinen & Associates, Drawing SD-13, Bench Detail, 1960 4-37
Figure 4.30. NPS Drawing 366/41009 A, Bench Detail, May 1971 4-37
Figure 4.31. Comparison of Saarinen lighting detail and NPS lighting
detail 4-39
Figure 4.32. Comparison of Kiley development of cobblestone pavers and NPS
as-built tree grates 4-41
Chapter 6
Figure 6.1. Project 3: Enhance Screening of Service Areas and Maintenance Facility .. 6-5
Figure 6.2. Project 4: Rehabilitate Pond Area Plantings for More Closely Represent
Design Intention 6-7
Figure 6.3. Project 5: Rehabilitate Single-Species Allee Plantings 6-11
Figure 6.4. Project 6: Rehabilitate System of Walks 6-12
Figure 6.5. Project 7: Overlooks Historic Structure Condition Assessment and
Treatment Plan 6-14
Figure 6.6. Project 8: Redesign Parking Garage Plantings to Align with Planting
Design of Larger Memorial Landscape 6-16
Figure 6.7. Project 9: Rehabilitate Plantings Along Railroad Open Cuts to More
Closely Represent Design Intent 6-18
JEFFERSON NATIONAL EXPANSION MEMORIAL CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT
THIS PAGE LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK JEFFERSON NATIONAL EXPANSION MEMORIAL CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT
Introduction
Study Area Boundaries
Jefferson National Expansion Memorial is a
91-acre park surrounding the iconic Gateway
Arch, located in St. Louis, Missouri on the
west bank of the Mississippi River (see Figure
1.1). The Memorial occupies 40 city blocks
between Washington Avenue and Poplar Street
and is bound by Leonor K. Sullivan Boulevard
on the east and Memorial Drive and the
depressed Interstate Highway 70 on the west.
Also included in the Memorial's boundary
are two blocks to the west of Memorial Drive:
Luther Ely Smith Square and the site of the Old
Courthouse (see Figure 1.2). 1
Management Summary
The Memorial is a unit of the U.S. National
Park system, managed and maintained by
the National Park Service. This Cultural
Landscape Report is intended to provide
the site managers with a comprehensive,
detailed history of the designed landscape
and its character-defining features, and
recommendations for future planning
decisions. A CLR for the Memorial was initially
produced in 1996 as a collaborative effort
between the Cultural Resources Division,
Midwest Field Area, National Park Service,
and Jefferson National Expansion Memorial.
Landscape architect Gregg Bleam was hired
to consult on the project and prepare a
report documenting the early history and the
design evolution under a separate contract. 2
In 2009-2010, AECOM was retained by the
National Park Service to update the Cultural
Landscape Report to reflect current conditions
and address new management issues, including
those related to the 2009 General Management
Plan/Environmental Impact Statement
(GMP/EIS) for the Memorial, and develop
landscape treatment recommendations into
implementation plans.
The GMP/EIS is an operational blueprint
for the Memorial, and is the lead document
setting priorities and long-term goals
for management, resource stewardship,
visitor experience, partnerships, and
facility operations for 15 to 20 years. In the
Preferred Alternative, the Memorial would be
revitalized through expanded programming,
facilities, and partnerships planned in part
as the result of an international design
competition. See pages 1-7 and 1-8 for a more
detailed description of the GMP/EIS and the
design competition goals.
Historical Overview
The Gateway Arch and surrounding
landscape were designed by architect
Eero Saarinen in collaboration with
landscape architect Dan Kiley. The
period of significance for the landscape
is 1947-2003. This period includes the
original design competition, evolution of
the award-winning design development
plan, and implementation of the approved
development plan. Although modifications
were made to the approved Saarinen/Kiley
design development plan during its long
implementation period, the approved design
was essentially executed with few changes.
A two-stage national design competition was
held in 1947-1948. The first stage, in 1947,
narrowed the competition from 172 entries
to five finalists. Of the five, Eero Saarinen's
1.0
JEFFERSON NATIONAL EXPANSION MEMORIAL CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT
INTRODUCTION / 1-1
design was chosen unanimously in 1948.
Following the competition, a 10-year period
of negotiations between the City of St. Louis,
the National Park Service, and the Terminal
Railroad Association (TRRA) regarding the
relocation of the elevated railroad tracks on the
levee took place. In 1957, when an agreement
was finally reached, Saarinen and Associates
was hired to design the Memorial (the railroad
relocation plan required major alterations
to the design). Saarinen subsequently
subcontracted Dan Kiley as landscape architect
for the project. Throughout the evolution of
the design development plan between 1947
and 1966 (the year the final planting plan was
approved), the concept remained the same: a
symbolic memorial in the form of an inverted
catenary curve located in a landscaped setting
on the riverfront.
Construction of major structural elements
(the railroad tunnels and overlooks) began in
1959 and concluded with the completion of the
Gateway Arch in 1965. There were two major
phases of landscape development. The first,
1969-1973, focused on the north-south axis and
area immediately west of the railroad cuts. The
second, 1979-1981, focused on the completion
of the plan (the entire west half of the site).
The grand staircase, another major structural
element, was partially constructed between
these two periods in 1976, and the three-story
parking garage was completed in 1986. The
central section of the grand staircase was
completed in 2003. Thorough documentation
of the landscape's development is recorded in
Chapter 2: Site Physical History.
OKLAHOMA
MISSISSIPPI
Figure 1.1 Location map showing the regional context of the Memorial.
1-2 / INTRODUCTION
JEFFERSON NATIONAL EXPANSION MEMORIAL CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT
>
n
re O
o
=J "i/i
O C
° s
-g.2
51
>
O
E cc
>
-1
cc
CL
2 «
F "
s
o y
JEFFERSON NATIONAL EXPANSION MEMORIAL CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT
INTRODUCTION / 1-3
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
The 91-acre Memorial grounds surrounding
the Gateway Arch are a nationally
distinguished cultural landscape. Reflecting
the design philosophies of a master architect
and master landscape architect, the Memorial
continues to convey its significance as a major
designed landscape of the Modern period.
The site design developed by Eero Saarinen
and Dan Kiley is evident today. The layout and
siting of major structures, walkways, plantings,
and other features were implemented in a
manner that is in keeping with their design.
The catenary curve forms reflected in
the railroad tunnel entrances, walkways,
undulating topography, and overlook walls
and stairs were designed by Saarinen, and are
a primary example of his design philosophy —
keeping within the same "form-world" as the
Gateway Arch. Other features, such as the
curvilinear pond edges and the grand staircase,
were not constructed precisely as designed, but
were implemented using forms with the same
general character in keeping with Saarinen's
design intent.
The planting plan designed by Dan Kiley was
intended to define and structure spaces with
the use of a consistent palette of plant species.
A limited number of tree species, each used
in great profusion, were meant to strengthen
the site layout, creating a sense of enclosure
along the pedestrian walks contrasted with
open spaces around the ponds. This "forest
and meadow" concept was integral to the
landscape architect's intent; although its
implementation deviated from the original
design concept, major elements including
the allees along the walks and the circles and
groves of baldcypress near the ponds are
character- defining features in keeping with the
design intent.
The major character-defining landscape
features that contribute to the Memorial's
significance include the Gateway Arch; the
overall landform and spatial organization;
designed views; the system of walks; the single-
species allees; the two ponds; the overlooks;
the railroad open cuts and tunnels; the grand
staircase; the baldcypress circles; the screen
plantings and depressed service areas; the
entrance ramps into the Gateway Arch; and the
concrete benches.
Significance
According to National Register Criteria for
Evaluation, properties which are less than
50 years old may be listed on the National
Register of Historic Places if they are of
"exceptional importance." 3 The Gateway
Arch is recognized as significant because it
has architectural and engineering design value
which will endure the "test of time." The
merits of the design to the architecture and
landscape architecture design professions are
eternal and could be recognized before the
customary 50-year "test of time."
The Jefferson National Expansion Memorial
is listed on the National Register of Historic
Places, and is also designated a National
Historic Landmark due to its exceptional
significance. The Memorial derives national
significance under National Register Criterion
A for its commemoration of Thomas Jefferson
and others responsible for the nation's
territorial expansion to the West. The
Memorial marks the symbolic economic hub
and embarkation point of westward expansion.
In addition, and perhaps most importantly,
the Memorial is significant under National
Register Criterion C for its architectural and
engineering merit. 4
Although the 91-acre landscape surrounding
the Gateway Arch is included in the National
Register nomination, the specific features
that characterize the landscape are not clearly
addressed in the nomination, nor is Dan
Kiley, a master landscape architect, credited
for his work. 5 Despite this oversight, the
Memorial is also significant under Criterion C
as the collaboration of a master architect and
landscape architect.
An exploration into Saarinen and Kiley's
design philosophies, their design intent for
the Memorial, and their working relationship
is undertaken in this report. The two men
did not only create a unique monument to
a historic American event, itself a worthy
accomplishment, but also collaborated on
1-4 / INTRODUCTION
JEFFERSON NATIONAL EXPANSION MEMORIAL CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT
many important building projects as architect
and landscape architect. Moreover, they
were close friends with common ideas about
the possibilities for architecture and design.
Perhaps what makes the Memorial even more
noteworthy is that their winning design for the
Memorial's architectural competition of 1947-
1948 launched their respective careers.
From this exploration of Saarinen and Kiley,
one theme becomes quite dominant: the
firm belief in an architecture that addresses
the total environment. Consequently, the
Memorial's impressive Gateway Arch was
never intended to be an isolated object
separate from the site planning and landscape
design for the Memorial grounds. Early on, the
designers generated the idea of the Memorial
as a forested, park-like setting, a simple
complement to the majesty of the Gateway
Arch, yet with a function and purpose of its
own. Saarinen and Kiley's compelling vision
for the Memorial had the strength to sustain
their intentions through the subsequent
decades of incremental changes, including
alterations due to budget constraints and other
designers' development of their concepts.
Treatment Recommendations
The landscape surrounding the Gateway Arch
closely reflects the design concept originally
conceived by Eero Saarinen and Dan Kiley.
It is clear that both the architectural features
designed by Saarinen and the landscape
features designed by Kiley were meant to
function as a single seamless monumental
design, together creating the unique character
of Jefferson National Expansion Memorial.
The integration of architecture and landscape
was of paramount importance to both masters
of design.
The recommendations presented in this
Cultural Landscape Report are intended
to guide the rehabilitation of the landscape
surrounding the Gateway Arch. This report
thoroughly documents the original design
intent as proposed by Saarinen and Kiley.
Park managers, working with planners and
designers, can effectively accommodate
contemporary management needs while
retaining the character of the original
design concept by conforming to the
recommendations presented here.
Scope of Work
and Methodology
The original Jefferson National Expansion
Memorial Cultural Landscape Report
provided much-needed guidance for the
landscape over more than a decade, but was
determined to be in need of an update to
address changes in current conditions and
issues at the Memorial and thus continue
to provide effective guidance. This updated
edition of the report builds on the 1996
edition's research, documentation, evaluations,
findings, recommendations, and provides
additional material such as expanded
discussion of significance and descriptions of
features.
A major milestone for the Memorial occurred
with the completion of a GMP/EIS in 2009.
The updated report provides a framework for
evaluating future design proposals that may
occur as part of the implementation of the
Preferred Alternative.
Goals for the Cultural Landscape Report
update are as follows:
• Clarify, enhance, and refine the 1996
edition, including its finding that design
intent is a critical factor in evaluating the
historical significance of the Memorial's
landscape;
• Clarify rationale for significance based on
design intent, and identify contributing
features;
• Expand discussion of significance,
design intent, and character utilizing
information and frameworks based on
advances in cultural landscape research,
documentation, analysis, and treatment
approaches relating to mid-twentieth-
century Modern design;
• Provide a benchmark for compatibility for
any future rehabilitation actions, additions,
or changes to the landscape; and
JEFFERSON NATIONAL EXPANSION MEMORIAL CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT
INTRODUCTION / 1-5
• Develop treatment recommendations
using the Secretary of the Interior's
standards for rehabilitation to provide a
framework of how the landscape should
be managed in the future; outline concepts
for management, maintenance, and repair
of significant landscape features; and
provide clear and specific cultural landscape
treatment guidance related to the actions
identified in the Preferred Alternative.
The update was undertaken by AECOM under
contract with the National Park Service. The
project team closely reviewed the 1996 edition
and engaged in discussions with Midwest
Region and Memorial personnel regarding
needs for the document update. The project
team developed a technical memorandum
regarding refinement of the discussion of the
landscape's significance and contributing/
non-contributing criteria; particular issues
affecting treatment approach, such as the
importance of design intent vs. as-built
implementation; and its status as a unique
Modern designed work with a long and
complex construction period. The project team
visited the site in September-October 2009 to
update existing conditions documentation.
This was incorporated into the updated report.
An updated AutoCAD base map file provided
by the National Park Service was utilized to
provide a revised existing conditions map base
for the 2010 update.
ADMINISTRATIVE CONTEXT
Other National Park Service (NPS) planning
documents or previous studies that identify
and/or recommend treatment of the cultural
landscape include the following, all of which
were consulted in the course of developing the
Cultural Landscape Report:
Conceptual Plans (various dates from
1935-present) 6
The idea for a riverfront memorial in St.
Louis dates to well before the inception of
Jefferson National Expansion Memorial by
President Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1935. Many
conceptual plans and references to plans can
be found in the JNEM Archives. For example,
among the early proposals for redevelopment
of the St. Louis riverfront was a c. 1928 plan
by noted landscape architect Harland
Bartholomew.
After the 1948 competition, Saarinen and
Associates developed many variations of their
memorial concept during the 16-year period
between the competition and NPS approval
of the plan. These transitional plans clearly
document the evolution in the concept from
a forested "wilderness" to the more open
landscape with continued use of a catenary
line. At least one plan was approved and
then superseded by a very similar plan which
became the final design development plan
for the Memorial. Many sets of construction
documents were prepared by the NPS
Denver Service Center (DSC) and by the
local St. Louis firm Harland Bartholomew
& Associates (HB&A). The drawings for the
landscape development are confusing because
they were packaged and re-packaged several
times in light of budgetary opportunities
and constraints at different periods in the
implementation process. The drawings that
were used by contractors to construct the
landscape and its character-defining features
are identified in Chapter 2: Site Physical
History.
A "Land Use Plan" was developed by the
DSC in 1981 upon completion of landscape
construction. The basic data for the maps
was taken from the construction documents
and specifications developed by the DSC and
HB&A, and from the Laclede Gas Company,
the Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District, and
Deeds and Court Actions in the St. Louis Civil
Courts. 7
Survey maps of the Memorial were created
by Kuhlmann Design Group, Inc. in 1995.
The firm used aerial photography and
photogrammetric mapping to produce plans
of the site in AutoCAD, Release 13.
Administrative History, Jefferson
National Expansion Memorial
National Historic Site
Prepared by Sharon A. Brown, June 1984.
Sharon Brown's 1984 Administrative History
details the history of the Memorial from 1933
to 1980. It gives an in-depth account of the
1-6 / INTRODUCTION
JEFFERSON NATIONAL EXPANSION MEMORIAL CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT
establishment of the Memorial from inception
of the idea, through the design competition,
through construction of the Gateway Arch
and landscape. Ms. Brown's publication is a
good source of information regarding legal
issues, financial difficulties, and the political
history of the park. Much of the background
information for this report and other
Memorial planning documents and reports
comes from this source.
Urban Innovation and Practical
Partnerships: An Administrative
History of Jefferson National
Expansion Memorial, 1980-1991
Prepared by Historian Bob Moore, 1994.
The 1994 Administrative History detailed the
inner workings of the Memorial from 1980
to 1991. It described in depth the day-to-day
jobs of maintaining, protecting, administering,
and interpreting the resource. The document
discussed grounds maintenance practices and
the changes that took place over the 11 -year
period. It provided a detailed history of the
Veiled Prophet Fair (Fair St. Louis) and the
effects the celebration had on the landscape.
Urban Innovations and Practical Partnerships
also provided information regarding the
operations of the park, the history and
association with cooperating agencies and
how the cooperative agreements were
established and maintained.
List of Classified Structures
Prepared by Architectural Historian Dena
Sanford, 1995.
The List of Classified Structures (LCS)
identified all historic and prehistoric
structures that have archeological, historical,
architectural, and/or engineering significance.
The original LCS for the Memorial was
completed in 1975 and was updated in
1994-1995. The update emphasized the
identification of structures which were
previously overlooked. The major architectural
and engineering structures, including the
Gateway Arch and the Old Courthouse, were
listed, but the updated list also included
landscape features which were considered
contributing to the overall significance of the
property. These included: the grand staircase,
the circulation system, railroad tunnels, north
and south overlooks, and ponds. The LCS
coincided with the 1996 cultural landscape
report, which elaborated on these features.
Resources Management Plan
Prepared by Curator of Cultural Resources
Kathryn Thomas, 1995.
The plan addressed the existing conditions
of the cultural resources of the Memorial and
identified needs for better protection of these
resources. In particular the plan identified
several studies and preservation efforts
pertaining to some of the landscape features.
It clearly identified the need for a Cultural
Landscape Report.
Statement for Interpretation
Prepared by Park Ranger Dave Uhler, 1995.
The Statement for Interpretation identified
the themes and objectives of the interpretive
program at Jefferson National Expansion
Memorial. The objectives coincided with those
of this Cultural Landscape Report. A new
Long Range Interpretive Plan is scheduled for
completion in 2010.
Jefferson National Expansion
Memorial General Management Plan/
Environmental Impact Statement
Prepared by NPS Midwest Region and AECOM,
2009.
General Management Plans (GMPs) are
required of all national park units by law
and serve as long-term plans to guide the
management and use of park lands. The prior
master plan for the Memorial was released
in 1962, more than a decade before the
completion of key elements of the Memorial
grounds, and was completed prior to the
enactment of the National Environmental
Policy Act, National Historic Preservation
Act, and other relevant laws. As such, it was
out of date. The 2009 General Management
Plan/Environmental Impact Statement (GMP/
EIS) for Jefferson National Expansion
Memorial is critical for guiding the operations
JEFFERSON NATIONAL EXPANSION MEMORIAL CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT
INTRODUCTION / 1-7
and management of the Memorial over
the subsequent 15 to 20 years. It is the lead
document currently guiding all decisions at the
Memorial.
The GMP/EIS examined four alternatives
for managing the Memorial, each with
a series of management zones that are
intended to articulate long-term goals for
resource condition, visitor experience, and
appropriate development. Management zones
are discussed in more detail in Chapter 5:
Treatment Recommendations. The document
also analyzed the impacts of implementing
each of the alternatives. Alternatives consisted
of a "no action" alternative that would have
continued the existing Memorial management
and that served as a baseline for comparison
in evaluating three action alternations that
differed from the existing management of the
Memorial. The action alternatives proposed
different ways to manage resources and new
facilities that would have allowed new types
of visitor uses and amenities. Alternative 3
was selected as the National Park Service's
Preferred Alternative.
The major action of the GMP/EIS Preferred
Alternative is a design competition. The
purpose of the design competition is to gather
a wide range of ideas for the revitalization of
the Memorial, emphasizing improvement of
the north and south portals, creation of new
east and west portals, providing physical and/
or thematic connections to downtown St.
Louis, the riverfront, adjacent commercial
development areas and the expanded
Memorial in East St. Louis. While partners are
involved throughout the process, the National
Park Service has sole authority over Memorial
lands and is the ultimate decision maker on
proposed new designs within the Memorial
boundaries.
The following are the design competition goals:
• Protection of historic and cultural resources
of the Memorial;
• Increased connectivity between the
Old Courthouse and the Gateway Arch
(including any combination of a single
elevated deck, multiple bridges, and
improved at-grade pedestrian crossings
across Memorial Drive);
Increased and improved connectivity
between the Memorial, downtown
St. Louis, the riverfront, the adjacent
commercial districts of Laclede's and
Chouteau's Landings and the expanded
Memorial in East St. Louis;
Increased opportunities, through programs
and facilities, for the public to be more
engaged with the primary themes and
stories of the Memorial;
Increased opportunities for the public to
feel more welcomed to the Memorial with
the provision of amenities and services that
support a safe and enjoyable experience;
and
Operational efficiency and effectiveness for
the Memorial's operation in a sustainable
ORGANIZATION OF REPORT
This Cultural Landscape Report consists of six
chapters:
• Chapter 1 provides a general introduction
and summary, including an overview of
the Memorial and its boundaries; summary
of findings, including significance and
treatment; a brief discussion of the scope of
work and methodologies; and a discussion
of other plans which directly relate to or
affect this report.
• Chapter 2 provides a site history, including
the background and design context as
well as physical implementation of the
site design. It discusses the development
of plans for the Memorial from the time
of inception until the final construction
documents and specifications were
completed. This chapter takes us through
Eero Saarinen and Dan Kiley's involvement,
the NPS design and construction offices'
(these included the former Eastern Office
of Design and Construction and the San
Francisco Planning and Design Office
1-8 / INTRODUCTION
JEFFERSON NATIONAL EXPANSION MEMORIAL CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT
— later known as the Western Service
Center - which were consolidated in
1972 to form the NPS Denver Service
Center) approval and development of
construction documents and specifications
based on Saarinen and Kiley's plan,
and the involvement of the local firm
HB&A. Chapter 2 also documents the
implementation of the site development
and landscape plan. This chapter is divided
into four construction periods when the
major development occurred. Period plans
complement each of the four periods,
depicting the features which were added or
removed during the time period.
• Chapter 3 provides a detailed description
of the site, including an assessment of
conditions and an existing condition site
plan.
• Chapter 4 includes a comparative analysis
of historic and existing conditions, and
describes the significance and integrity
of the Memorial grounds. Threats to the
integrity of particular features are identified
as a high priority for treatment.
• Treatment Recommendations are proposed
in Chapter 5. The chapter begins with
a brief discussion of the recognized
preservation treatments and clearly
identifies why rehabilitation is chosen as
the recommended overall treatment for the
Memorial landscape. A treatment concept
is described, addressing the management
goals laid out in the 2009 GMP/EIS.
General and specific recommendations
were made to guide future landscape
management and planning decisions.
• Chapter 6 includes implementation
projects for preservation actions based on
the recommendations in Chapter 5. These
implementation projects include general
cost estimates.
Several appendices and a bibliography follow
Chapter 6. For a complete list of appendices,
consult the Table of Contents.
JEFFERSON NATIONAL EXPANSION MEMORIAL CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT
INTRODUCTION / 1-9
Endnotes
A 100-acre extension of the park on the
east side of the Mississippi River was
authorized in 1984 and finalized in 1992.
The east bank will not be addressed in
detail in this report.
Midwest Region (formerly Midwest
Field Area) of the National Park Service,
contract with Gregg Bleam, Landscape
Architect. Contract #:i443PX6ooo94635.
Portions of this report are taken directly
from Gregg Bleam's "Evolution of a
Landscape: Eero Saarinen and Dan
Kiley's Collaborative Design for Jefferson
National Expansion Memorial."
3. U.S. Department of Interior. National
Register Bulletin 22: Guidelines For
Evaluating and Nominating Properties That
Have Achieved Significance Within the Last
50 Years. The bulletin was completed by
the Interagency Resources Division of the
National Park Service, U.S. Department of
Interior, n.d., 3.
Laura Souilliere Harrison, National
Register of Historic Places Inventory,
Nomination Form for Jefferson National
Expansion Memorial, 1985 and Jefferson
National Expansion Memorial Gateway
Arch, National Historic Landmark
Nomination Form, 1987.
A detailed comparative analysis and
assessment of contributing status of
landscape features, and the statement
of significance, can be found later in
this report in Chapter 4: Analysis and
Evaluation.
6. Most of the plans discussed throughout
this report can be found in the JNEM
Archives, Record Units 104, 120, and 128.
7. Basic Data information is noted on page
1 of the Land Use Plan, October 2, 1981.
Copy on file in JNEM Archives, Record
Unit 120, Drawer 13, Folder 10.
1-10 / INTRODUCTION
JEFFERSON NATIONAL EXPANSION MEMORIAL CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT
Site Physical History
Introduction
This chapter combines Chapters II and III of
the 1996 Cultural Landscape Report volume.
History of Design Development
Jefferson National Expansion Memorial was
established to commemorate the role of St.
Louis in the westward expansion of the United
States, and the foresight of President Thomas
Jefferson in authorizing the Louisiana Purchase
and the Lewis and Clark Expedition. The
Gateway Arch and landscape, although less
than 50 years old, have a long and complicated
history. 1 And, although not anticipated, the
site's significance goes far beyond its original
intention as a memorial. It is clear as a result of
this research effort that both the architecture
and the landscape together form a work of art,
reflecting the work of two masters, which also
contributes to the significance of this property.
The City - "Gateway to the West"
Established by Pierre Laclede in 1764 as a
French fur-trading post along the Mississippi
River, St. Louis grew from a village into a
thriving town following the negotiation of the
Louisiana Purchase by Thomas Jefferson in
1803 (see Figure 2.1). St. Louis also became the
central point of departure for those traveling
Figure 2.1. 1796 map of St. Louis. (JNEM Archives)
2.0
JEFFERSON NATIONAL EXPANSION MEMORIAL CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT
SITE PHYSICAL HISTORY / 2-1
into the western territories. As western lands
opened and trade began, St. Louis became a
hub of commercial activity. It was in recogni-
tion of this movement westward, and St. Louis'
central role as the "Gateway to the West," that
the Gateway Arch was destined to rise over
St. Louis' waterfront at the point of Laclede's
original settlement.
The Riverfront
St. Louis quickly became a hub of the young
nation's river transport, being well located near
the confluence of the Missouri and Mississippi
Rivers, with the Missouri River becoming the
main artery for frontier commerce. Regular
steamboat runs began soon after the first crude
launch arrived in 1817, and the sloping site of
the old village quickly came to be crowded
with warehouses and steamboats moored
along its levee (see Figure 2.2). Following such
rapid growth and Missouri statehood, St. Louis
incorporated as a city in 1822. A massive fire in
1849 required the rebuilding of several blocks
of commercial structures in the riverfront
district.
St. Louis grew to over 300,000 residents
by 1870, developing and thriving as a result
of steamboat and river commerce. This
commerce eventually declined, and was largely
replaced by rail transport following the Civil
War. St. Louis ultimately became the nation's
,-r«
'*.xa:
-
' ' IllS'iil— ' ■■' ^L
■gvkfcE
j- Sfr y« my ^»
Figure 2.2. St. Louis Riverfront, 1852. (JNEM Archives,
uncatalogued collection)
second largest rail terminal, but with this
shift in transportation came a corresponding
deterioration of the city's riverfront area, a
cause for concern among civic leaders. The
Louisiana Purchase Exposition of 1904 was
built in St. Louis' Forest Park, eight miles west
of the riverfront. It was the largest world's
fair ever staged, and prompted action on the
riverfront issue. Its classically arranged Beaux
Arts buildings set amidst broad lagoons and
statuary brought the "City Beautiful" move-
ment to St. Louis and sparked interest in civic
improvements. Subsequently, comprehensive
city planning began in 1907, including recom-
mendations for improvements for the decaying
riverfront.
Many different plans were suggested for
the development of the decayed riverfront
between 1907 and 1937. Two plans produced
by the City Plan Commission in 1926 and 1927
focused on large-scale automobile parking.
Other later proposals included a sea wall on
the river with a large aquarium on the site, and
another proposed a major housing project. 2
Of particular interest was "Plan 8009"
developed by the National Park Service (NPS)
(see Figure 2.3).' The plan maintained several
historic buildings in their original locations,
as well as retaining the original street pattern
of the old French village. Major north-south
and east-west axes were proposed, and at their
intersection stood a central tower surrounded
by a colonnade which would shelter a narrative
about the "winning of America by and for the
Americans." 4 The Memorial plaza concept,
studied for many subsequent years, formed an
important urban axis, upon which the Gateway
Arch was later aligned.
1933-1944 - Movement to
Establish a Memorial
Plans for the revitalization of the St. Louis
riverfront most firmly coalesced in 1933
through the efforts of Luther Ely Smith, a
prominent St. Louis attorney. Smith conceived
the idea for a riverfront memorial after
touring the monument to George Rogers
Clark in Vincennes, Indiana. In addition
to memorializing an event of national
significance, the project was a means to
revitalize the riverfront, promote economic
2-2 / SITE PHYSICAL HISTORY
JEFFERSON NATIONAL EXPANSION MEMORIAL CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT
development, and provide jobs in the midst of
the Great Depression.
St. Louis Mayor Bernard Dickmann reacted
favorably to Smith's proposal for a riverfront
memorial, in turn presenting the plan to a
group of community and business leaders
in December 1933. Again, the idea was well
received, and the group formed a temporary
committee to further explore the matter.
Shortly thereafter, the committee formed
the Jefferson National Expansion Memorial
Association (JNEMA), chartered as a nonprofit
organization with the intent to develop and
adopt plans, generate public interest, build
financial support, and ultimately improve a site
for the Memorial. More specifically, this was
to be:
"... a suitable and permanent public memorial
to the men who made possible the western
territorial expansion of the United States,
particularly President Jefferson, his aides
Livingston and Monroe, the great explorers,
Lewis and Clark, and the hardy hunters,
trappers, frontiersman and pioneers who
contributed to the territorial expansion and
development of these United States; and
thereby to bring before the public of this and
my to photograph or hovel
' PIASf &®<B& *
future generations the history of our develop-
ment and induce familiarity with the patriotic
accomplishments of these great builders of our
country." 5
From the outset, these words established
the guiding ideal for the Memorial, an ideal
which proved critical in overcoming ongoing
political, legal, and financial obstacles to the
Memorial's development.
Federal Support —
Fhe United States Ferritorial
Expansion Memorial Commission
Because the proposal was to memorialize
events of national significance rather than to
commemorate local persons or events, within
months of its founding, the JNEMA pursued
congressional support and funding. This
support was initiated upon authorization in
1934 of the United States Territorial Expansion
Memorial Commission to design and construct
a permanent memorial upon approximately 85
acres adjoining the St. Louis levee south of the
Eads Bridge. In accordance with the resolution
providing for the Commission's establishment,
the group's fifteen members were composed
of federal lawmakers and persons from
Figure 2.3. National Park Service "Plan 8009," 1937. (JNEM Archives, Record Unit 104, Box 31, Folder 7)
JEFFERSON NATIONAL EXPANSION MEMORIAL CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT
SITE PHYSICAL HISTORY / 2-3
throughout the country, including Luther Ely
Smith.
Despite creation of the national commis-
sion, the more local JNEMA continued to
develop detailed plans for the riverfront, and
considered the idea of holding an architectural
competition for the Memorial. A St. Louis
architect hired by the JNEMA, Louis La
Beaume, provided a written concept for the
competition in early 1935, important because
it contained the principal components of the
competition actually held twelve years later.
Meanwhile, the commission initiated meetings
and by May 1935, based on input from the
JNEMA, agreed upon the Memorial's histor-
ical significance, and approved site boundaries
and the concept of a national architectural
competition, as well as a cost estimate of $30
million for planning, acquisition, and develop-
ment.
Financial Matters and
Historic Site Designation
Financial support from state and local
lawmakers arrived rapidly, with the St. Louis
Board of Aldermen approving an ordinance
permitting a special bond issue election to
contribute $7.5 million toward the Memorial
project. Although the election was scheduled
for September 1935, the approval came with the
understanding that federal authorities would
approve the project and make a substantial
financial contribution prior to the date of the
election. Therefore, commission and JNEMA
members continued to pressure federal
authorities for promises of financial support.
Attempts to secure funding focused on the
Federal Public Works Administration (PWA),
chaired by Harold Ickes, and the Works
Progress Administration (WPA), headed by
Harry Hopkins, project backers arguing that
the Memorial was a suitable candidate for
New Deal work relief funds. By August 1935,
the commission gained verbal promises of
support in their application for federal relief
funds from both Ickes and Hopkins, as well
as a promise that the National Park Service
would assume responsibility for maintenance
of the Memorial. The National Park Service
began preliminary investigations into the
project, relying on NPS engineer John Nagle
to inspect the proposed plans and location.
Nagle reported favorably on the project and its
significance, also recommending federal aid,
but for the first time he addressed the difficul-
ties existing railroad tracks presented for
development of the site (see Figure 2.4).
Figure 2.4. Elevated railroad tracks along the levee in St. Louis, c. 1935. (JNEM Archives, reference slide collec-
tion)
2-4 / SITE PHYSICAL HISTORY
JEFFERSON NATIONAL EXPANSION MEMORIAL CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT
With the verbal assurances of Ickes and
Hopkins, the city proceeded with the bond
issue election on September 10, 1935. The
bond issue passed and survived immediate
legal challenges. Federal funding followed
in unusual fashion when on December 21,
1935, President Franklin D. Roosevelt signed
Executive Order 7253 permitting the Secretary
of the Interior to acquire and develop
Jefferson National Expansion Memorial. 6 In
order to overcome various political and legal
roadblocks, the Executive Order declared
Old St. Louis as the location of the Memorial,
and designated it the country's first National
Historic Site under the Historic Sites Act. This
recent (1935) law provided for the preserva-
tion of historic sites, buildings, objects, and
antiquities of national significance, and gave
the Secretary of the Interior broad powers to
carry out this policy through the National Park
Service. The President's action included the
allocation of S3.3 million in WPA funds and
S3.45 million in PWA funds for site acquisition. 7
Between 1936 and 1939, progress was slow
while the JNEMA found themselves dealing
with numerous political, financial, and legal
delays. John Nagle continued to oversee
efforts for the National Park Service, in
June 1936 opening an office in St. Louis
as Superintendent of the Memorial, and
commencing with various historical and plan-
ning studies that continued for the next four
years. Much activity revolved around compli-
cated matters of land acquisition.
The NPS — Planning Studies
NPS studies were initiated with an early
proposal for a Museum of American
Architecture, and thereafter gained
momentum. Most importantly, the National
Park Service brought aboard Thomas E.
Tallmadge, FAIA to study the site and comment
on the value of certain buildings in the
Memorial area. Tallmadge's report proved vital,
as the National Park Service generally relied
on its findings in determining which buildings
should be spared demolition. While Tallmadge
believed many of the buildings possessed
architectural and historic value, he did not find
any to be of outstanding quality. Consequently,
he recommended the preservation of only
two buildings in the Memorial area, the Old
Cathedral and the Old Rock House. 8 The
report also stated that the Old Courthouse
(constructed between 1839 and 1862) should
be included in the Memorial's "great architec-
tural scheme," an idea that received favorable
reaction from NPS personnel (see Figures 2.5,
2.6, and 2.7). Beyond the report's assessment,
however, saving and restoring decayed ware-
houses seemed to lack economic justification
during the Great Depression.
Following the Tallmadge report, the NPS
Branch of Historic Sites and Buildings
prepared recommendations for the Memorial,
consisting of additional requirements for
historical research, including a detailed
analysis of the historic value of buildings
in the area, development of an educational
program relating the area to the history of
westward expansion, and development of a
temporary historic museum as a step toward
the Memorial's permanent development.
This report became the basis for NPS work
beginning in 1937, which eventually led to
further support for demolishing buildings in
the Memorial area, as well as the establishment
in 1943 of a temporary museum in the Old
Courthouse.
Land Acquisition and the
Railroad Problem
The process of land acquisition essentially
began with filing the first condemnation suits
in June 1937, but proceeded slowly. Much of
the delay was due to federal caution and legal
challenges to such action. A major hurdle was
cleared in January 1939 when the United States
Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the validity
of the federal government's program of land
acquisition, allowing the National Park Service
to proceed with condemnation plans. Even
so, the start of demolition on site was delayed
until October 10, 1939. Moreover, questions
remained as to the Memorial's status, with
project backers uncertain as to whether
funding for the project beyond land acquisi-
tion and demolition would become available.
It seemed that Congress would have to be
approached for additional funds.
JEFFERSON NATIONAL EXPANSION MEMORIAL CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT
SITE PHYSICAL HISTORY / 2-5
Figure 2.5. Restored Old Rock House, c. 1943. QNEM
Archives, Visual Image 106-943, Record Unit 106, Box
10, Folder 7)
Figure 2.6. Old Cathedral, c. 1939. (JNEM Archives,
Visual Image 106-1436, Record Unit 106, Box 9,
Folder 14)
Figure 2.7. Old Courthouse, c. 1939. (JNEM Archives,
Visual Image 106-175, Record Unit 106, Box 20,
Folder 42)
Of equal concern, the railroad tracks crossing
the site along the levee posed their first threat
to the project when Secretary of the Interior
Ickes ruled that no moneys would be allocated
toward building the Memorial without their
removal. Therefore, Superintendent Nagle
began immediate negotiations for the removal
of the tracks, simultaneously with the process
of land acquisition. From the beginning the
National Park Service favored a solution
whereby the tracks would be relocated off site.
Yet, with three surface and two elevated tracks
along the riverfront on the east side of the
Memorial site, it would take 20 years to over-
come the obstacles posed by their existence.
General Development Principles
With land acquisition progressing slowly
through 1938 and questions arising as to the
Memorial's justification, planning became
more sharply focused on general development
principles and defining the underlying idea
for the artistic and historical development
of the Memorial. Superintendent Nagle's
leadership was significant in this regard,
defining the major purpose of the Memorial
as "to commemorate the westward expansion
of the United States with emphasis on the
Louisiana Purchase."' For Nagle, this meant
that the importance of the site and its buildings
depended on their relation to national events.
Thus, only the Old Courthouse and the Old
Cathedral were regarded as worthy of preser-
vation, reflecting the findings of the Tallmadge
report and the NPS studies.
Nagle's vision also meant that development of
the site was to place emphasis on the relation-
ship between the city and the Mississippi
River, recognizing the important tie between
river and landing in the city's and the nation's
development. The Memorial's architectural
elements were to be symbolic of St. Louis'
role as the "Gateway to the West," with the
architectural elements centering on the
east-west axis set by the Old Courthouse, and
following the original mall proposal. As for the
Memorial grounds, Nagle required a scheme
with a maximum of open green space, and any
structures built on the site were to interpret
events connected with the Louisiana Purchase
and westward expansion. Finally, these goals
were to be realized through a nationwide
2-6 / SITE PHYSICAL HISTORY
JEFFERSON NATIONAL EXPANSION MEMORIAL CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT
professional competition seeking the nation's
best talent to give architectural expression to
the Memorial. The above ideas were reinforced
by a series of landscape studies prepared by
NPS staff, examining principal site features and
compositional ideas. 10 While Nagle's proposals
were just that in 1938, they were to become
among the strongest influences upon the
Memorial project.
1940-1944
Property acquisition and demolition of the
riverfront buildings continued until 1942, as
did problems and delays (see Figure 2.8). There
was a general lack of progress toward comple-
tion of the Memorial with no specific plans
or funding for the Memorial itself. Of course,
World War II effectively determined such an
outcome, with the entire country focused on
the war effort; no domestic memorial project
could feasibly be constructed at such a time.
Most crucial, however, the public saw evidence
of progress through the process of demolition
and grading of the site, and the rehabilitation
of a few select buildings. By early 1942, all but
three buildings were razed from the Memorial
area, the Old Rock House, the Denchar
Warehouse, and the Old Cathedral (see Figure
2.9)." John Nagle resigned as Superintendent of
the Memorial to accept a position with the War
Department, and was replaced by Julian Sports,
who had served as an advisor on the project.
The Old Courthouse and Other Issues
In addition to demolition, the most important
work focused on the preservation and inclu-
sion of the Old Courthouse as integral to the
Memorial scheme, and continued negotiations
to solve the railroad problem. While little
progress was made on the railroad problem, the
former issue found favor among project backers
as evidence revealed that the Old Courthouse
played a crucial role in the movement west.
Moreover, it was reasserted that President
Roosevelt's Executive Order declaring the
Memorial a historic site specifically referred
to the Old Courthouse. While some federal
officials were reluctant to take possession of
the building in its dilapidated state, President
Roosevelt approved action to take title.
Restoration work allowed the Old Courthouse
to open in 1943 as a temporary museum and
to house the National Park Service's St. Louis
offices. The museum and the associated exhibit
Figure 2.8. St. Louis riverfront after demolition of warehouses, c. 1942. QNEM Archives reference slide collec-
tion)
JEFFERSON NATIONAL EXPANSION MEMORIAL CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT
SITE PHYSICAL HISTORY / 2-7
Ekl
LJ!i
-Si | | «^*_
i, -
i
— !'
i'
„-__
=J3
■ 1
. -_., ■•
_^
!
[.
"" 1 t'
H4
n
? r ?
«.;
I
" wJK— II
t
! i
i
}
, :
!' ! '' f- 1'
sb*
^
It '1
i, g
. .- —
JiUi
i
i^T
T
il
^
5T
1»
^ Ji
— : I'
a ■ --
IT.
{. r,
s ,
£»-
ill"
— _
"T^s;;
—
7^ |-^-4g
3 |
I I
if
3
>
2
2
Z
*
3
be
2-8 / SITE PHYSICAL HISTORY
JEFFERSON NATIONAL EXPANSION MEMORIAL CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT
and lecture programs sponsored by the
National Park Service generated additional
public interest in the Memorial.
Competition Prelude
After February 1, 1941 the Works Progress
Administration (WPA) ceased to operate any
federally sponsored projects. This was crucial
to Memorial development as its available funds
were spent, work relief funds were no longer
an option, and further development beyond
the completed land acquisition and demolition
would clearly rely on future approvals from
Congress. Therefore, NPS staff turned their
attention toward postwar planning, believing
that additional funds would eventually become
available. Once again, this meant a reexamina-
tion of the Memorial's purpose and theme,
with special consideration given to how the
Memorial would conform to NPS ideals,
particularly its function in interpreting relevant
United States history. In fact, questions
arose as to the necessity of a new memorial
structure given the historic site designation.
Superintendent Spotts, however, saw value in
a memorial, potentially bringing more people
into contact with NPS interpretive work.
Likewise, he felt that because the National
Park Service did not have a specific design for
the Memorial, it should cooperate with the
JNEMA's proposed architectural competition.
1945-1948 - The Design Competition
The end of World War II allowed efforts to
focus on the development of a design for the
Memorial project; this meant undertaking
an architectural competition as proposed
by the JNEMA. The original intent, that the
Memorial be a $30 million enterprise, meant
that following land acquisition and clearance,
$20 million were to be expected for improve-
ments to the site. Therefore, JNEMA members
desired the best talent available to transform
their vision into clear form as demonstrated
through drawings and models. 12
NPS Conditions
This vision was most clear in the mind of civic
leader Luther Ely Smith, the man who set
the process in motion beginning in 1933. He
remained firm in his convictions, expressing
his desire for a memorial "transcending in
spiritual and aesthetic values."' 3 His personal
view was that these values could best be
expressed through one central feature, such
as a shaft, a building, an arch or some other
construction symbolic of American culture
and civilization. Nonetheless, he and the other
JNEMA members recognized that their desires
would have to be balanced against the needs
and ideas set by the federal government.
The JNEMA formally announced a national
architectural competition in January 1945,
despite the fact that approximately $225,000
had yet to be raised to stage the competition,
and that the National Park Service, although
favoring the idea, had not officially endorsed
it. The latter issue was crucial, as any design
chosen through the competition would have to
be approved by the Department of the Interior
and the U. S. Territorial Expansion Memorial
Commission. Encouraged by Superintendent
Julian Spotts, NPS Director Newton Drury
indicated that his agency would cooperate in
the competition provided that the Memorial
carry out the theme of westward expansion
with emphasis on the historic significance of
the site, and that the proposal include space
for a museum. In addition, any design proposal
would have to abide by the condition imposed
by former Secretary of the Interior Ickes that
the railroad tracks along the Memorial's east
boundary had to be removed to reestablish the
critical connection between the river and the
site. Finally, the National Park Service balked at
the inclusion of extensive parking as part of the
Memorial scheme, an element desired by many
downtown St. Louis businessmen who were
primary financial contributors to the archi-
tectural competition. Otherwise, Drury felt
that the designer should be allowed complete
liberty to express the Memorial's theme.
A Competition Advisor
Fundraising spearheaded by Smith progressed
slowly, taking two years to raise the money
from local sources. However, in August
1946, as fundraising neared completion,
Philadelphian George Howe, a fellow of
the American Institute of Architects (AIA),
was asked by Smith to serve as professional
advisor to the competition. Both the National
Park Service and the JNEMA felt that the
JEFFERSON NATIONAL EXPANSION MEMORIAL CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT
SITE PHYSICAL HISTORY / 2-!
competition would benefit from a well-known
advisor based outside St. Louis; the advisor
was intended to give the competition national
stature. Howe agreed to serve on the condition
that the competition reflect his architectural
philosophy.
As a proponent of a modern architectural
philosophy, Howe believed that architecture
was meant to reflect modern life spiritually and
materially rather than merely mimic historic
forms. As regards the Memorial site, Howe
emphasized inspirational, educational, and
recreational facilities that celebrate life in the
present above the act of remembrance. He felt
that this approach could prove troublesome
and warned Smith accordingly.
Regardless of his own concerns, George Howe
was confirmed by the JNEMA as a professional
advisor to the competition, and spent several
months writing the competition guidelines.
Luther Ely Smith remained influential, guiding
the JNEMA throughout the competition
proceedings as the organization's president.
The Competition Program
The competition guidelines prepared by Howe
closely followed earlier plans for a competi-
tion established by the JNEMA, reflecting
the contribution of local architect Louis La
Beaume. Principally, there were to be two
stages to the competition, both anonymous:
the first stage to eliminate all but a few
competitors and the second stage to select a
single architect and design. In addition, the
competition was open to all architects and
practitioners of the allied arts including sculp-
tors, landscape architects, and painters who
were citizens of the United States.
Smith and Howe met with NPS representa-
tives in March 1947 to discuss final plans for
the competition, at which point differences
between local and national intent for the
Memorial emerged. In particular, Smith and
Howe wished to accommodate an under-
ground parking lot as an element of the
competition, while the National Park Service
strongly opposed such a conception as incom-
patible with the function of a national memo-
rial. Potentially more problematic, the federal
government expressed concern that local
commercial interests were becoming overly
influential in the development of a memorial
intended to commemorate significant events in
the nation's history. Smith reached a compro-
mise by suggesting that the first stage of the
competition remain open to a range of solu-
tions, whereas the second stage could remedy
specific problems and disagreements.
The Competition Program drafted by the
JNEMA established the rules for submission of
a design, and set forth programmatic require-
ments for a design proposal. These program-
matic requirements attempted to satisfy diverse
functions while presenting a unified intent for
the Memorial:
"(a) an architectural memorial or memorials to
Jefferson; dealing (b) with preservation of the
site of Old St. Louis — landscaping, provision
of an open-air campfire theater, reerection
or reproduction of a few typical old build-
ings, provision of a Museum interpreting the
Westward movement; (c) a living memorial to
Jefferson's 'vision of greater opportunities for
men of all races and creeds;' (d) recreational
facilities, both sides of the river; and (e)
parking facilities, access, relocation of rail-
roads, placement of an interstate highway." 14
In this, the program attempted to meet the
requirements of the congressionally sanctioned
and appointed U.S. Territorial Expansion
Memorial Commission, the City of St. Louis,
the National Park Service, and the private
non-profit JNEMA. (For instance, the open-air
campfire theater was a standard requirement
for every national park in 1947.) Thus, its scope
was unique in its comprehensiveness and
extent, including a consideration of the entire
memorial area and its relation to the adjacent
cities of St. Louis and East St. Louis.
The JNEMA also set forth the rules by which
a jury composed of seven persons was to
select the competition winner and the size of
the prize. The identity of competitors was to
remain anonymous until the jury completed its
work, with decisions reached by secret ballot
requiring a majority vote to carry the deci-
sion. Just before the competition's scheduled
opening on May 30, 1947, it received an impor-
tant endorsement when the U.S. Territorial
2-10 / SITE PHYSICAL HISTORY
JEFFERSON NATIONAL EXPANSION MEMORIAL CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT
Expansion Memorial Commission approved
the competition plans.
The JNEMA's competition attracted imme-
diate attention among practitioners as the
major architectural competition following the
war. More than 200 architects signified their
intent to enter and received the Competition
Program. Three months were allotted within
which to submit an entry, with the deadline set
for September 1, 1947. Ultimately, 172 entries
were received from throughout the country,
and on September 23, Howe met in St. Louis
with the seven jury members for three and
one-half days of deliberations. The jury
members were Chairman William W. Wurster,
A.I.A.; S. Herbert Hare, F.A.S.L.A.; Fiske
Kimball, F.A.I.A.; Louis La Beaume, F.A.I.A.;
Charles Nagel, Jr., A.I.A.; Richard J. Neutra,
A.I.A.; and Roland Wank, ALA. Although
Howe was not permitted to vote, he took part
in the deliberations.
The Saarinen Gateway Arch — Competition
Stage One
Among the five finalists chosen from the
numbered entries was Design Number 144,
an immense arch (see Figures 2.10 and 2.11).
Written comments provided by the jury
described a range of reactions. 15 Hare was
skeptical as to the practicality of the scheme,
while both Wank and Nagel thought the design
to be one of considerable merit. In fact, Wank
referred to the scheme as "inspired," and Nagel
thought the entry "an abstract form peculiarly
happy in its symbolism." 16
The monumental Gateway Arch and grounds
of Design Number 144 were the work of a
collaborative team headed by Eero Saarinen of
the firm Saarinen, Saarinen and Associates of
Bloomfield Hills, Michigan, a firm well estab-
lished through the work of Eero's father, Eliel
Saarinen. However, the competition provided
the younger Saarinen with an opportunity to
produce a major work apart from his father.
Assisting in this task were J. Henderson Barr,
associate architect, Dan Kiley, landscape
architect, Alexander H. Girard, painter, and
Lily Swann Saarinen, sculptor.
Despite the collaborative nature of the effort,
the Gateway Arch itself was strictly Saarinen's
conception. Underscoring his attachment
to the symbolic expression of an arch as the
"Gateway to the West," he pursued a simple
expression of form, ultimately settling upon
the two-legged Gateway Arch following a visit
to the Memorial site. Saarinen's major concern
was to create a monument which would
have lasting significance and be a landmark
for modern times. He recognized that "an
absolutely simple shape — such as the Egyptian
pyramids or obelisks — seemed to be the basis
of the great memorials that have kept their
significance and dignity across time." 17
In developing this scheme, Saarinen chose the
purest expression of the forces acting upon an
arch, a mathematically precise catenary curve
in which the thrust forces are directed toward
the center of the arch legs. Built of stainless
steel with a concrete core, its materials were
to emphasize both a timeless and a modern
quality. These fundamental components gener-
ated the sweeping, upward thrusting character
of the Gateway Arch, no longer earth-bound
and wholly in line with Saarinen's visualization
that this should be the tallest of monuments.
Saarinen stated that "Neither an obelisk nor a
rectangular box nor a dome seemed right on
this site or for this purpose. But here, at the
edge of the Mississippi River, a great arch did
seem right. " &
Landscape architect Dan Kiley was an espe-
cially important member of the design team.
Saarinen invited Kiley to work on the first
competition entry, the idea for a Gateway
Arch as symbolically important already well
established in his mind. Consequently, from
the outset of their collaboration, Saarinen
and Kiley together wrestled with the Gateway
Arch's symbolic value and its special relation
to the site, seeking a unified conception. Most
importantly, the Gateway Arch was the lofty
visual center within a park setting meant to
"symbolize the spirit of the whole Memorial." 19
Sited parallel to the river with the centerline
initially placed slightly off-axis to the Old
Courthouse, the Gateway Arch nonetheless
framed views of the courthouse from the river,
creating an immediate connection.
As for the character of the site, Saarinen
later commented: "We believed that what
JEFFERSON NATIONAL EXPANSION MEMORIAL CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT
SITE PHYSICAL HISTORY / 2-11
Figure 2.10. Eero Saarinen's Stage One submission, plan view, 1947. (JNEM Archives, Visual Image 104-251)
2-12 / SITE PHYSICAL HISTORY
JEFFERSON NATIONAL EXPANSION MEMORIAL CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT
Figure 2.11. Eero Saarinen's Stage One submission, perspective, axonometric and other views, 1947. Note inset
perspective view of allee was added to submission at a later date. (JNEM Archives, Visual Image 104-252)
JEFFERSON NATIONAL EXPANSION MEMORIAL CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT
SITE PHYSICAL HISTORY / 2-13
downtown needed was a tree-covered park.
We wanted to have the most nature possible
toward the City." 20 Kiley emphasized that the
site should take on the character of a forest
zone that one might pass through while
traveling across the prairie landscape, a forest
dominated by one or two tree species, much
as he viewed the composition of a totally
"natural" landscape. The simplicity of Kiley's
conceptual forest was to give majesty to
Saarinen's Gateway Arch. 21
Saarinen and Kiley
Saarinen and Kiley were first introduced
in 1942 by the architect Louis Kahn, and
continued to correspond throughout the war
years, beginning their professional relationship
in 1945 with a competition for a government
center in Quito, Ecuador. Their relationship
developed in such a way that Kiley collabo-
rated as the landscape architect on much of
Saarinen's most important work, including
Jefferson National Expansion Memorial, the
Detroit Civic Center, Dulles International
Airport, and master planning projects for a
number of colleges and major universities.
Kiley recalled that "... Eero asked me to do all
his work, for twenty years, and the only time
I didn't do it is because the client already had
somebody they wanted ... So, Eero and I had a
very close relationship." 22
The nature of Saarinen and Kiley's relationship
is evident in Kiley's remembrance of Saarinen's
initial correspondence concerning the Gateway
Arch, inviting Kiley to join him in preparing a
submission for a major competition. The letter
was sent to Kiley's New Hampshire residence
in what Kiley refers to as "mirror writing"; to
be read, the letter had to be held up to a mirror.
In fact, Saarinen frequently communicated
with Kiley in this manner, revealing a close
friendship. 23
With an affirmative answer, Saarinen and
his wife Lily traveled to Kiley's residence in
Franconia, New Hampshire to begin concep-
tualizing and preparing the competition entry.
Saarinen arrived with a small sketch of an arch
in hand. For the next week, the two discussed
the symbolic value of the arch, and its rela-
tion to the remainder of the site, all the while
preparing more sketches. 24
Following the week in New Hampshire,
there was another month of intense work at
Saarinen's office in Michigan, the other team
members becoming more involved. This inten-
sity and rush to generate the competition entry
even caused Saarinen and Kiley to work on a
single drawing at the same time, an episode
which seems to have become a competition
unto itself. Beginning at opposite ends and
meeting in the middle, Saarinen's proved
to be the faster hand. "I'm left-handed,"
remembered Kiley, "and Eero started here and
I started on this side, and he beat me to the
middle, but my claim to fame was I could draw
cobblestones like Eero ,.." 25 Regardless, Kiley's
humor provided relief in the Saarinen office,
and balanced Saarinen's especially competitive
drive. 26
Preparing for the second stage of the Memorial
competition, the atmosphere was equally
high-pitched. Kiley again spent considerable
time at the Saarinen office in Bloomfield Hills,
Michigan, the two working nearly around the
clock for a period of four months. "We were
delighted to learn that we were one of the five
selected for a final competition in 1948. 1 lived
with Eero and Lily Saarinen for four months
working all night every night or as Eero put it,
'till we achieved a definite advance."' 27 A close
collaboration such as that between architect
and landscape architect was therefore critical
to Saarinen's design approach, but clearly the
relationship between Saarinen and Kiley was
unusually strong, based on friendship as well as
professional circumstance.
That Saarinen found value in the relationship
between architect and landscape architect
might best be distilled from a lecture he gave a
number of years later, at Dickinson College in
1959:
"The conviction that a building cannot be
placed on a site, but that a building grows
from its site, is another principle in which I
believe. I see architecture not as the building
alone, but the building in relation to its
surroundings, whether nature or man-made
surroundings. I believe very strongly that the
single building must be carefully related to the
whole in the outdoor space it creates. In its
mass and scale and material it must become an
enhancing element in the total environment.
2-14 / SITE PHYSICAL HISTORY
JEFFERSON NATIONAL EXPANSION MEMORIAL CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT
Now this does not mean that the building
has to succumb to the total. Any architecture
must hold its head high. But a way must be
found for uniting the whole, because the total
environment is more important than a single
building." 28
Here was direct evidence that Saarinen
carried forth his father's philosophy in the
Scandinavian tradition of creating an architec-
ture that benefited from a reciprocal relation-
ship with the landscape. Saarinen continued
by saying that "Unlike painting and sculpture,
where the individual works entirely alone,
architecture involves many people. It is true
that it all has to be siphoned through one mind,
but there is always teamwork." 29
The design of the Jefferson National
Expansion Memorial proves Saarinen's to be
the "one mind" through which "it all has to
be siphoned," but without a doubt Kiley was
a key member of the team. 3 " As Kiley's role
developed, he focused on the preparation of
the planting plan, which both he and Saarinen
considered essential to the Memorial's total
development, and a fitting setting and comple-
ment to the Gateway Arch. Certainly, the
original conception was for the Gateway Arch
to rise from a forested, park-like setting, and
the architect and landscape architect never
deviated from this ideal.
Program Changes
With the completion of the first stage of the
competition, and the selection and announce-
ment of five designers, Howe drafted a
second stage addenda somewhat redefining
the nature of the problem. Addressing NPS
concerns while not proposing solutions, the
five semi-finalists were to view the railroad
tracks along the riverfront as though they were
already removed or placed underground, and
consider any underground components of the
design such as a parking garage in such a way as
not to affect the surface design. The addenda
also called for a transformation of the site into
a shaded park with an open view between the
levee and the Old Courthouse, although the
designers were no longer required to consider
a specific redesign of the levee, and were now
fundamentally confined to the area between
the levee and the city. Finally, the architectural
memorial was to be considered as "essentially
non-functional," an appealing and notable
structure visible from a distance. Both the
Director of the National Park Service and the
Assistant Secretary of the Interior gave their
approval to these requirements. As a result,
most of the competitors were required to
rethink their schemes. 3 '
Kiley recalled: "The second stage of the
competition was grueling. For four months I
lived in Bloomfield Hills with the Saarinens,
immersed in Eero's determination and
competitive drive. At the time it seemed to be a
string of endless days and nights — every day
and every night — of poring over models and
sketches. The majority of our effort went into
the final presentation boards, masterminded
by Eero. He had a habit of standing back to
view the work, cigar gripped tightly in teeth,
hands gently rubbing together in appraisal of
the drawings. I had a great time mimicking
his stance — pencil dangling from my mouth,
forehead crinkled in concentration. After the
competition was over, others on the team said
that my antics kept everyone's spirits up. I do
know that levity was a necessary counterpoint
to the intensity of the competition drive. And
that experience taught me an important life
lesson: never work nights again!" 32
A deadline of February 10, 1948 was established
for submittal of the final competition entries,
with an awards dinner scheduled for February
18 to announce the competition winner. All
five semi-finalists submitted their entries by
the deadline, and a week later the jury met for
final deliberations. Upon meeting, Chairman
William Wurster read important sections of
the Competition Program to remind the jury of
their charge, and George Howe affirmed that
the Memorial should have a striking design and
character.
The Competition Winner —
Competition Stage Two
After reviewing the entries the jury took a test
ballot, and Design Number 144 won every
vote (see Figure 2.12). No further balloting
was necessary; the proposal submitted by
Saarinen's design team had been chosen the
winner of the competition. Significantly, the
addenda to the Competition Program did not
JEFFERSON NATIONAL EXPANSION MEMORIAL CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT
SITE PHYSICAL HISTORY / 2-15
2-16 / SITE PHYSICAL HISTORY
JEFFERSON NATIONAL EXPANSION MEMORIAL CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT
change Saarinen's conception of a monu-
mental Gateway Arch in a wooded setting, a
conviction which won favor with the jury.
The final report of the jury of award described
the competition winner and the jury's assess-
ment. It described some of the main features
of the design included with the Gateway Arch,
such as an "arcade" to feature sculpture and
paintings to tell the story of westward expan-
sion, a theater and a pioneer village re-creation
to augment NPS interpretive goals, and two
museums, one architectural and the other
historical. But also clear in this discussion was
the intentional relationship between the grand
Gateway Arch, the Memorial site, its subsidiary
elements, and the connections to the adjacent
community and surroundings (see Figure 2.13).
"This entry placed in the First Stage, for it
contains intrinsically the very features aspired
to by the Program ... a memorial, a park,
balanced harmony and fine grouping of build-
ings. The success of the plan does not depend
upon the carrying out of a suggested collabora-
tion of communities on the eastern bank of the
Mississippi though it suggests to the full the
advantages of such a possibility.
"The Second Stage resulted in an enriched
and improved plan with no diminution of
any of its initial excellencies. It tends to have
the inevitable quality of a right solution. The
monument suggests the historic past of St.
Louis as the Gateway to the West. It is large in
scale, yet does not dwarf other structures, and
by its very form is sympathetic with the Old
Courthouse dome. The use of the Manuel Lisa
Warehouse as an entrance to the Memorial is a
peculiarly happy instance of the brilliant effect
to be gained by the occasional close juxtaposi-
tion of old and new.
"The park gives promise of shade in the warm
season. The treatment of the roadways is an
effective guard against traffic intrusion. The
approach to the Old Cathedral and its adjacent
dependencies ensures a proper setting for
that dignified structure. The treatment of
sculpture commemorating historical episodes
is particularly engaging as it gradually unfolds
along the levee edge. A frontier village in the
wooded area recalls the flavor of the time of
the Western Expansion. Restaurants on either
end afford vistas of the Memorial area and the
Mississippi. Feature by feature a masterful plan
reaches desired fulfillment.
"The entire concept, full of exciting possibili-
ties for actual achievement, is a work of genius,
and the Memorial structure is of that high
order which will rank it among the nation's
greatest monuments." 33
Perhaps such a viewpoint, cognizant of the
entire concept, could not be avoided. J.
Henderson Barr, an associate architect and
the major draftsman on the project, produced
a series of about 100 color sketches for the
Final Stage study, illustrating the design impact
of the monumental Gateway Arch from
viewpoints around the compass and over the
course of a day. The rendering chosen for the
stage two competition entry dramatized the
Gateway Arch, but also showed old and new
structures, including St. Louis' historic Eads
Bridge (see Figure 2.13). 34
Reaction
When renderings of the Saarinen proposal first
appeared in the press, they provoked a range
of commentary on the project. The New York
Times called the Gateway Arch "a modern
monument, fitting, beautiful and impres-
sive." 35 The architectural press also reacted
positively. By contrast, many locals referred to
the Gateway Arch as a "stupendous hairpin
and a stainless steel hitching post." 36 The most
volatile criticism came from Gilmore D. Clarke,
a landscape architect and Chairman of the
National Commission of Fine Arts. In a letter
to jury Chairman Wurster, Clarke charged that
Saarinen's design for the Gateway Arch too
closely resembled one approved by Mussolini
for a Fascist exhibition in Rome in 1942. For
this reason, he felt that the Gateway Arch could
not symbolize Jeffersonian Democracy. 37
The Gilmore controversy attracted national
attention. While Saarinen thought the objec-
tions ridiculous, Wurster took the charges
quite seriously and with other members of the
jury drafted a rebuttal which finally ended the
controversy 38 Their reply stressed the historic
and modern usage of the arch as an architec-
JEFFERSON NATIONAL EXPANSION MEMORIAL CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT
SITE PHYSICAL HISTORY / 2-17
fe v '..
Figure 2.13. Eero Saarinen's winning competition entry, perspective rendering,
Image 104-321)
(JNEM Archives, Visual
tural form, and that it was clearly not a fascist
invention. In reference to Saarinen's Gateway
Arch, they reiterated the suitability of its
symbolism as the Gateway to the West. For his
part, Saarinen claimed that his Gateway Arch
was based on mathematical principles. "It's just
preposterous to think that a basic form, based
on a completely natural figure, should have any
ideological connection." 39
With the passing of the initial praise and criti-
cism, the United States Territorial Expansion
Memorial Commission unanimously adopted
a resolution in May 1948 approving the
selection of the Saarinen team's design and
recommending to the National Park Service
and the Secretary of the Interior that Saarinen
be selected as architect for the Memorial's
development and construction. Meanwhile,
Saarinen forged ahead on the project, working
without a contract. Concerned that the
proposal would become reality, Saarinen began
engineering studies on the Gateway Arch itself,
and proceeded to deal with the unresolved
problems of parking and the relocation of the
railroad lines crossing the site. Working with
William Wurster he also developed objectives
for special zoning in the area adjacent the
Memorial site, wishing to ensure that future
development not interfere with his vision of
the Memorial as a unified whole.
In October 1948, Secretary of the Interior
and NPS Director Newton B. Drury gave
general approval to the competition's winning
design and awarded a contract to Saarinen
for preliminary work. With a definite design
proposal the Memorial appeared ready for
the next step in its development. Yet, appro-
priations for construction of the Memorial
required congressional approval, and funding
remained in danger until the railroad problem
could be solved. Optimism over the project still
ran high. To Luther Ely Smith, who resigned as
president of the JNEMA within months of the
competition's completion, Saarinen's design
was the fulfillment of his dream for a memorial.
At the awards dinner honoring the competition
winner, Smith displayed his gratitude: "We are
still breathless at the vision you have opened
up for us by your marvelously fine design. The
more we gaze upon it the more wonderful and
2-18 / SITE PHYSICAL HISTORY
JEFFERSON NATIONAL EXPANSION MEMORIAL CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT
gripping it grows." 40 Unfortunately, Smith died
on April 2, 1951, well before the Memorial's
realization.
1949-1956 - Railroad Problem
Despite progress achieved through the
competition and the legitimacy bestowed on
the project through President Truman's dedi-
cation of the Memorial site on June 10, 1950,
problems continued to surface that delayed
further advancement for several years. A major
obstacle was once again armed conflict. With
the outbreak of the Korean War in June 1950,
international matters would hold the attention
of Congress and the President until late 1953,
and as a result postpone congressional autho-
rization and appropriations for the Memorial.
Therefore, although Saarinen and Kiley made
progress in their production of working plans
for the Memorial, no improvements were
completed on the physical site itself. In fact,
much of Saarinen's work revolved around
finding a workable solution to the relocation of
the railroad tracks crossing the site, a problem
that continued to haunt the project. 4 '
The "Saarinen Vista"
In 1949 the railroads indicated that they would
object to placing the railroad tracks under-
ground because the potential costs seemed
unlikely to be borne by the federal govern-
ment. On the other hand, the National Park
Service was adamantly opposed to any location
which visibly placed the rail lines between the
Memorial site and the river. Additionally, the
National Park Service remained opposed to
any on-site parking other than that essential
to the operation of the Memorial. Meanwhile,
Saarinen stated that he did not wish to be the
architect for the project if the tracks separated
the Memorial from the river (see Figure 2.14). 42
Saarinen initially held to his position for
the reason that the visual line from the river
through the Memorial to the Old Courthouse
was critical to his conception. This line both
tied the Old Courthouse to the Memorial
site and brought the river into the composi-
tion. The idea of connecting the river with
the Memorial was especially important and
caused the Gateway Arch to be placed along
the levee in close proximity to the river, thereby
recognizing the influence of the river in the
history of westward expansion. Saarinen
remarked that "The arch was placed near the
Mississippi River, where it would have the
most significance. Here it could make a strong
axial relation with the handsome, historic
Old Courthouse which it frames. Here, from
its summit, the public could confront the
magnificent river. The arch would draw people
to the superb view and picturesque activity at
the river's edge. The museum, the restaurant,
the historic riverboats were all projected on the
levee. The river would be drawn into the total
composition." 43
Thus, the visual line was intended to
draw people from the summit of the Old
Courthouse down to the activity planned
for the riverfront. In fact, the "Second Stage
Addenda" to the Competition Program
required a vista from the Old Courthouse
to the river, although the Saarinen concept
featured this sight line already in the first stage
competition proposal, further suggesting its
importance to the scheme. Maintaining the
"Saarinen vista" would therefore guide the
initial agreement for siting the railroad tracks,
although not without compromise on the part
of Saarinen.
A Railroad Tunnel
A new concept for the rail lines was presented
in June 1949, in which the lines were to be
lowered and placed in a cut immediately in
front of the Gateway Arch, and the cut was to
be shielded from view by retaining walls and
landscaping. Labeled the Levee-Tunnel Plan,
the proposal was backed by the city and the
railroads. Saarinen initially objected in favor of
his own idea for placing the tracks in a tunnel
farther removed from the riverfront, but recog-
nizing the strength of support for the Levee-
Tunnel Plan, he reluctantly worked with the
idea, while at the same time suggesting changes
to make the plan more aesthetically acceptable.
This was the first step toward resolution, and
emerged as a strong influence upon the final
treatment of the track relocation problem.
Frustrated by the lack of definitive progress,
the various groups vitally interested in the
Memorial's completion met in early December
to resolve the uncertainties associated with
JEFFERSON NATIONAL EXPANSION MEMORIAL CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT
SITE PHYSICAL HISTORY / 2-19
the project, especially the railroad and parking
controversies. The urgency attached to the
meeting was based on knowledge that the
necessary Congressional authorization and
appropriations required the resolution of these
matters.
In response, the parties consented to a
"Memorandum of Understanding," requiring
the relocation of the existing surface and
elevated railroad tracks based on a revised
plan by Saarinen, and also including provisions
for underground parking and above ground
parking for the city. The Saarinen plan for
the railroad lines reflected the compromise
position of the groups involved, placing the
tracks in a tunnel near the Gateway Arch and
close to the alignment of the existing elevated
railroad tracks. They were initially placed on
the west side of the Gateway Arch opposite the
river, but shortly thereafter Saarinen shifted
the tunnel to a location between the river
and the Gateway Arch in order to allow the
existing elevated tracks to operate during the
Memorial's construction. This approximated
the eventual location of the relocated tracks,
and was further evidence of Saarinen's willing-
ness to compromise on the railroad issue.
The Secretary of the Interior approved the
"Memorandum of Understanding," but the
tunnel proposal required special approval from
the Missouri Public Service Commission for
deviations in design standards. A lower than
otherwise acceptable tunnel height proved
necessary as there were physical limitations
^i^jtrLLl
s
as to how far the tunnel could be depressed,
and to raise the tunnel would unacceptably
negate the "Saarinen vista." The Public Service
Commission eventually gave their approval in
August 1952. Even so, by early 1950 Memorial
backers presented a united front to key
members of Congress, pressing for immediate
congressional authorization, all the while
fearing the project's demise. Unfortunately,
the advice from congressional insiders was to
abandon such efforts as inappropriate during a
time of war.
Preliminary Design Work
Without congressional approval and federal
moneys for construction, efforts focused on
project planning and office work. By January
1951, Saarinen had completed much of the
preliminary work under his contract, an
extensive set of drawings, including profile
and structural drawings for the Gateway Arch,
scale drawings of the museum and restaurants
to be located on-site, and various layout and
engineering studies for the proposed railroad
tunnel. The engineering firm of Fred N.
Severud provided structural calculations for
the Gateway Arch, based on wind tunnel tests
of an arch model. It was the railroad issue,
however, that occupied much of Saarinen's
time, as completion of preliminary work on the
railroads was seen as necessary for eventual
congressional authorization.
Because work focused intensely on resolu-
tion of the railroad problem, as well as the
Ji &U_JU * i_lJ
Figure 2.14. Eero Saarinen & Associates, early railroad study, 1949. (JNEM Archives, uncatalogued collection)
2-20 / SITE PHYSICAL HISTORY
JEFFERSON NATIONAL EXPANSION MEMORIAL CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT
structural integrity of the Gateway Arch,
Kiley's role was rather limited from the waning
days of the competition until 1957. Then, he
would reemerge as a significant collaborator
on the project, the railroad problem forcing
a more comprehensive consideration of the
entire site plan. In the meantime, he began
research for the planting plan, already looking
to the Missouri Botanical Garden in St. Louis
for information on plants appropriate to the
region. 44
Beyond its role in working to resolve the
railroad and parking dilemmas, the National
Park Service also continued its involvement in
the planning of the Memorial. Specifically, they
found it necessary at this stage to coordinate
the NPS prewar planning with the Saarinen
proposal. While accepting Saarinen's space
allotments for a proposed western museum
and a museum of architecture, they objected to
that part of the winning concept that featured
the frontier and cathedral villages to include
reproductions of early St. Louis buildings.
Eventually, cost and other design constraints
altered the Saarinen plan for use of the
grounds to more closely follow NPS goals.
1953-1956 — Congressional Authorization
The Louisiana Purchase sesquicentennial in
1953 brought renewed public attention to the
Memorial project, as did other events. Some
of this attention grew out of downtown St.
Louis's parking problems; approximately 3,500
motorists routinely used the cleared Memorial
site for a parking lot. More positively, extensive
restoration of the Old Courthouse beginning
in 1954 kept the Memorial in the public's
mind. Amid all this public recognition of an
unfinished project, and the end of the Korean
War, new efforts were made to win federal
authorization and appropriations.
Unfortunately, funding for the project was
delayed: this time the Department of the
Interior and other project backers were
informed that appropriations would have
to wait until the national budget could
be balanced in the aftermath of the war.
Nonetheless, a 1954 bill provided authoriza-
tion for spending not more than $5 million
in federal funds on the Memorial project.
Although no funds were immediately appro-
priated through this authorization, and while
it restricted the expenditure of federal funds
to the Gateway Arch itself, the authorization
provided an indicator that Congress would
follow through with plans to construct the
Memorial.
Defining Kiley's Role
Optimism and expectancies again surged
when in January 1956, President Eisenhower
announced the prospect of a balanced budget
for 1957; a promise had been made that with
a balanced budget, federal money would be
released to begin the Memorial project. A
partial appropriation of $2.64 million dollars
was made toward the relocation of the railroad
tracks.
Anticipating renewed progress on the
Memorial project, Saarinen wrote to Kiley
on August 6, 1956, "... you and I should get
together to reevaluate the design, placing of
the Gateway Arch, the whole plan." Clearly,
Saarinen considered Kiley's work essential to
the project. In an accompanying memo also
intended for his design associates, Saarinen
outlined the anticipated scope of work under
a series of contracts with the National Park
Service, citing Kiley's role in the need for
"finished site plan work and landscaping."
Saarinen closed out the letter to Kiley with the
following message: "I may be optimistic but it
really looks as if sometime within the not too
distant future you will be sitting on the steps
of the Manuel Lisa Warehouse with your cigar
supervising trees coming down the river in
barges." 45
1957 — Saarinen and Kiley's New Vision
On May 16, 1957, Delegates of the AI A
Centennial Convention in St. Louis unani-
mously adopted a resolution urging Congress
to take necessary action to complete the
Memorial in accordance with the plan adopted
by the United States Territorial Expansion
Memorial Commission on May 25, 1948. 46
In 1956 the National Park Service and the rail-
road interests, headed by the Terminal Railroad
Association of St. Louis (TRRA), jointly hired
a Chicago-based engineering firm, Alfred
Benesch and Associates, to study the cost of
JEFFERSON NATIONAL EXPANSION MEMORIAL CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT
SITE PHYSICAL HISTORY / 2-21
relocating the tracks. Controversy erupted
when their final report was issued on May 3,
1957, and went beyond the requested scope of
work, offering an opinion against removing
the tracks because of the high cost associated
with tunneling or otherwise lowering the
tracks. Saarinen and the American Institute of
Architects immediately denounced the idea,
and it was made known by project supporters
that the engineer was heavily biased toward
the rail interests. NPS Director Conrad Wirth
addressed the need for additional negotiations,
and subsequently asked Saarinen to study
design changes. The NPS response to the
Benesch Report depended on what adjust-
ments Saarinen could make to his design while
at the same time minimizing the relocation of
the rail lines.
Revised Plans
The summer of 1957 was spent by Saarinen
and his designers reworking the plans and
by October the revisions were complete (see
Figures 2.15, 2.16, and 2.17). Saarinen concluded
that the competition plan was unworkable in
the face of the railroad controversy, and he
was eager to see his majestic Gateway Arch
constructed. 47 Moreover, the impending
construction of a bridge with interstate
highway connections at the Memorial site's
southern edge was expected to reduce the site
to about 70 acres. 48
The new Saarinen scheme provided for the
railroad tracks to run through an open cut and
partial tunnel configuration still proximate
to the existing elevated lines, but reduced the
depth by which the tracks were to be lowered.
So as not to separate the Gateway Arch from
the river, a grand staircase was to rise over
and bridge the tracks from the levee to the
monument. As a result of grade changes related
to this, the "Saarinen vista" was partially
obscured. While the Gateway Arch was
positioned in stronger axial relation to the Old
Courthouse (the Gateway Arch was no longer
slightly off-axis), the plan reduced the unob-
structed sight line from the Old Courthouse
to the river, or for that matter, from the
Gateway Arch to the river (see Figure 2.18).
Other components of the design were also
altered, for instance, abandoning the Museum
of American Architecture and the village-like
reproductions of early St. Louis buildings. For
the first time, lagoons or ponds appeared on
the site plan as features embedded in the forest
setting.
On October 2, 1957 Saarinen presented
his revised plan in model form in the west
courtroom of the Old Courthouse. Before city,
railroad, and National Park Service representa-
tives, as well as a congressional delegation,
he offered a statement regarding the changes
to the original plan. It was an appropriate
description of the plan and its intent: "... The
spirit of this new design is the same as that of
the design which won the national competition
10 years ago. The Arch — the major element
of the plan — is in fact unchanged from that
of the original design and only in the plan of
the park, the setting for and approaches to the
Arch and the placement of other buildings on
the site have changes been made.
"We feel that we have now related all the major
elements of the Park to each other in a more
unified way. The stainless steel Arch — as the
symbolic Gateway to the West — is the center
Figure 2.15. Eero Saarinen & Associates, site plan study, 1957. (JNEM Archives, uncatalogued collection)
2-22 / SITE PHYSICAL HISTORY
JEFFERSON NATIONAL EXPANSION MEMORIAL CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT
■ '■- . ■ '■
ft "^^sy w ■ ■■ pwfr£fe?-5i&S3w? — - — - — ; — w&m mk&¥m r 1 - cj ^ /S?'** 5 *
Figure 2.16. Eero Saarinen & Associates, site plan studies, 1957. (JNEM Archives, uncatalogued collection)
JEFFERSON NATIONAL EXPANSION MEMORIAL CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT
SITE PHYSICAL HISTORY / 2-23
mmw-
Figure 2.17. Eero Saarinen & Associates, site plan with 2-foot contour interval, Drawing 1 of 4, October, 1957.
(JNEM Archives, uncatalogued collection)
Figure 2.18. Eero Saarinen & Associates, section through axis from Old Courthouse to river, Drawing 2 of 4,
October, 1957. (JNEM Archives, uncatalogued collection)
and focus. It now stands on a raised base as
have all the great vertical monuments of the
past ... On the levee side, a broad stairway, a
broad monumental stairway leads up to the
Arch. It is a symbolic stairway, as well as an
actual one, for it symbolizes the movement of
the peoples through St. Louis, the gateway.
"The axial relation between the Arch and
the handsome, historic courthouse, which
it frames, is now much stronger and clearer.
The new curvilinear form of the plaza on
which the Arch stands and of the roads which
wind through the Park all belong to the same
'parabolic' family as does the Arch itself. Thus
the whole design becomes a more mature and
classic design.
"The formal elements of the Plaza and the
axial, tree lined mall leading to the Court
House are contrasted with the romantic forest
areas on each side of the axis — areas in which
we envision pools and rock outcroppings and
pleasant, winding paths.
"... We have found a compromise with the
problem of the railroads, which we think will
be a practical as well as an aesthetically satis-
factory solution. The tracks of the Terminal
railroad now on the trestle have been relocated
100 feet westward and lowered a maximum of
16 feet. The railroad runs in an open cut among
the trees. There is a 960-foot long bridge over
the railroad where the broad, monumental
stairway rises from the levee to the Arch. The
2-24 / SITE PHYSICAL HISTORY
JEFFERSON NATIONAL EXPANSION MEMORIAL CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT
railroad is also bridged, at the north and south
ends of the Park. Here the bridges lead to the
(Historical) Museum and the restaurant and
to the stairways down to the levee at these
locations.
"One cannot think of the Park alone. The
Park, the City, the west side of the Mississippi
and the east side — these are all parts of one
composition. On the model, we have taken the
liberty of showing a diagrammatic redevelop-
ment on all three sides of the Park. Not only do
we believe that this frame of the Park — these
edges — ought to be redeveloped, but we
see here one of the great opportunities in an
American city for redevelopment." 49
It is evident from Saarinen's statement that
while the railroad problem forced a recon-
sideration of the site plan, and the years of
negotiations constrained Saarinen to substan-
tial compromise that was at least "satisfactory,"
the plan was in the end not driven by the
railroads (see Figure 2.19). As with the competi-
tion scheme, Saarinen and his design team had
a conception of the unified whole.
The Same Form-World
During 1957 Eero Saarinen, perhaps in
consultation with Dan Kiley, spent a great
deal of time wrestling with the aesthetics of
the site, taking into consideration the major
changes caused by the introduction of a series
of tunnels and open cuts for the railroad
between the Gateway Arch and the Mississippi
River, the Interstate highway along the western
edge of the site, and the stated needs of the
National Park Service. This intensive design
period resulted in both men taking a fresh
look at the problem of the St. Louis riverfront
and completely re-imagining the landscape to
complement the magnificent Gateway Arch.
Among the many alterations to the site plan,
perhaps the most lasting was the creation of a
holistic scheme emphasizing the axial relation-
ship with the Old Courthouse, and extending
the curvilinear geometries of the Gateway Arch
to other site features, especially the paths, stair-
ways, railroad tunnel entrances, flood walls,
ponds and roads. Commenting on the plan in
January 1959, Saarinen allowed further insight
to the Memorial's development:
=iJ_J_L
ts
■
Figure 2.19. Eero Saarinen & Associates, plan and profile of proposed design for relocated railroad tracks,
Drawing 4 of 4, October, 1957. QNEM Archives, uncatalogued collection)
JEFFERSON NATIONAL EXPANSION MEMORIAL CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT
SITE PHYSICAL HISTORY / 2-25
"The formal elements of the plaza and the
axial, tree lined mall leading to the Old
Courthouse are contrasted with the romantic
areas on each side of the axis — areas with
pools, rock outcroppings, and winding paths.
All the lines of the site plan, including the paths
and roads, and even the railroad tunnels, have
been brought into the same family of curves to
which the great arch itself belongs. More and
more I believe that all parts of an architectural
composition must be parts of the same form-
world.'^
From the approved competition plan,
only the concept of the Gateway Arch in a
forested, park- like setting remained the same.
Regardless of what had been lost, to Saarinen's
mind the new site design was better, much
simpler and reflected the lines of the Gateway
Arch itself: "You see, before it was put together
with many different well-related things, but of
many different form-worlds. Now it's going to
be all one." 51
The curvilinear form permeated the new
design, expressed both in plan and section.
Consequently, the broad, monumental
stairway leading from the levee to the Gateway
Arch, was designed to "have treads of
decreasing depth toward the top to dramatize
the upward sweep of the approach to the
arch." 52 Considerations of this kind were
not taken lightly. In response to concerns
that the stairway design might not be safe,
Saarinen's office constructed a full-scale
mock-up of the steps in plywood, and ran
employees in the office up and down the steps
to see if they would trip (see Figure 2.20). 53
Such consistent attention to detail and form
continued throughout the process of design
and construction.
Even while the form of the Gateway Arch had
not changed, its location and relation to the
site were distinctly different, forced to move
due to the relocation of the railroad tracks. But
Saarinen was still satisfied that an improve-
ment had been made.
"The arch in the earlier plans was right on
the levee. From the city you went down to
it. It was almost at the bottom of the bowl.
Now, because of practical things, we had to
raise it up. It's not only the practical things
that made me want to raise it up. I also started
thinking what vertical monuments are there
that you approach going downhill and the
only one I could think of was the sunken ship
v'^-v-A'V.-.fV ■<■■: / .* y t ■< I ■■:
: -*
•'. ■■■'. ■■'. -•■
1 »_-.
Figure 2.20. Section detail through proposed design for grand staircase, November i960. (JNEM Archives,
Record Unit 120, Drawer 22, Folder 12)
2-26 / SITE PHYSICAL HISTORY
JEFFERSON NATIONAL EXPANSION MEMORIAL CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT
at the bottom of the Spanish Steps in Rome.
You cannot place a vertical monument at the
bottom of some steps." 54
Saarinen had become ever more conscious of
the Gateway Arch's relation to other build-
ings in the city and desired to raise the base;
the base was to give the Gateway Arch "more
dominance over the tall buildings of the city"
and "it seemed essential as an approach to a
vertical monument." 55
The strong placement of the Gateway Arch on
axis with the Old Courthouse and the generally
symmetrical layout suggests Saarinen's influ-
ence as well. Writes one critic, "If you look at
Eero's site plans, you see modern buildings laid
out according to Beaux- Arts compositional
principles." 56 The new focus drew naturally
from Saarinen's early Beaux Arts training at
Yale University, the more general movement
in the 1950's toward a symmetrical, classical
ordering of Modernist building design, and
Saarinen's commitment to the integration of
building and landscape. The landscape also
took on a highly ordered geometry, this union
of geometries in both landscape and building
emerging in the work of Saarinen in the 1950s.
Revisions to the conceptual order of the
Memorial site therefore did not appear without
precedent. Through the summer of 1957,
prior to his revealing the revised proposal in
October, the plan evolved through a series
of site plan sketches prepared by Saarinen in
which he experimented with axial layouts and
curvilinear forms (see Figures 2.15 and 2.16). 57
Thus, Saarinen's description of the revised
Memorial plan and the preparatory site plan
sketches are revealing in another respect. The
conceptual basis for the site planning, the idea
behind a single form-world, was inherent in
his thought; his was the "one mind" through
which "it all has to be siphoned."
Kiley's Role — Planting Plan as Integral to
the Whole
Dan Kiley remained an important team
member, and his later descriptions of the
Memorial project suggest a prominent role,
especially in creating a planting scheme
integral to the total conception.
"My basic interest in the landscape was
to develop a sense of movement of spatial
continuity," he recalled. "This was done by
arranging undulating lines of high tulip poplar
trees spaced very close together so they started
from either entrance wide and narrowed
down to a neck, and then as one turned to the
side elevation of the Gateway Arch, the trees
would widen up to the base. This development
would happen on both sides of the Gateway
Arch. This was really the important aspect of
the landscape design treatment; the rest of the
planting was to provide color and interest with
forest groves for sitting and picnicking and on
the river side to clothe the banks with masses
of flowering shrubs and trees; and finally at the
levee included a boulevard of willow trees." 58
Favorably, Kiley's ever-present interest in the
spatial qualities of the landscape and this focus
on the movement across the landscape in
relation to the structure worked hand in hand
with Saarinen's unified conception of a site. 59
Moreover, it lent magnitude to Kiley's role in
the process of designing the Memorial project,
and his activities focused on this ideal, refining
and developing the planting plan in support
of the whole. 60 However, it would not be until
late 1959, when Kiley began working on the
planting plan in earnest, that he would again
become an obvious contributor to the project. 6 '
Of the planting plan, he would later recall, "...
it took a lot of studies, many, many, many." 62
Revised Plan Approvals
The new proposal, of course, required the
support and approval of numerous groups,
not the least being the railroad interests.
The U.S. Territorial Expansion Commission
rapidly approved the plans, and by the end of
November interested parties, including the
city, the railroads and the Department of the
Interior, agreed to another "Memorandum of
Understanding" accepting the revised plans
for relocating the tracks. Saarinen even went
so far as to accept the continued operation of
the three surface tracks along the levee, and
therefore, the estimated cost of $5 million
was to provide only for the relocation of the
elevated lines. It seemed that the railroad
problem was again near resolution, but
difficulties briefly presented themselves once
JEFFERSON NATIONAL EXPANSION MEMORIAL CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT
SITE PHYSICAL HISTORY / 2-27
more due to a disagreement over the allocation
of costs. Fortunately, the new plan conception
accommodated a final solution.
1958-1959 - The Site Plan Evolves
The years 1958-1959 were exceptional for the
development of the Memorial in comparison
to the stops and starts of the previous decade.
The revised Saarinen plan presented at the
end of 1957 provided the basis for progress
and resolution on a number of levels. The
railroad problem was resolved in a manner
compatible with the plan, and this in turn
helped provide the justification for additional
funding requests. The revised Saarinen plan
also provided the framework for development
of the NPS 1959 Master Plan for Jefferson
National Expansion Memorial, refining
programmatic elements of the Memorial.
By the middle of 1959, the site was ready for
groundbreaking ceremonies. 63
Positive Signs: Railroad Resolution and
Increased Federal Authorization
Following the revised agreement for relocation
of the elevated railroad tracks, the railroad
interests balked, anticipating that their share
of the cost of relocation would be excessive.
Instead, they favored an open cut without
tunnels for the entire length of the Memorial
site. The solution had to balance cost with
aesthetic considerations, and emerged simply
as an alternative whereby Saarinen's proposed
960-foot tunnel would be developed as a less
costly open cut roofed with concrete slabs.
Saarinen could foresee no changes in the
aesthetics of his plan and approved of the
concept, as did city and railroad officials. On
June 2, 1958, a final agreement was signed by
NPS Director Conrad Wirth and Secretary of
Interior Marion B. Folsom, opening the way
for the use of authorized federal funds for track
relocation. The cost was approximately $3
million, with the railroads and the city together
matching the federal contribution. Following a
modified ruling by the Missouri Public Service
Commission to allow for the new rail line
configuration, and payment of the railroad's
financial obligation, NPS Director Wirth finally
announced that relocation of the tracks would
begin in June or July of 1959.
While the railroad problem was being
concluded, Memorial supporters pushed
for the authorization and appropriation of
additional funds. Buoyed by the St. Louis
area congressional delegation, a bill for the
increased authorization of funds made its
way through the House and Senate, and on
September 7, 1958, President Eisenhower
signed the bill authorizing an increase of $12.25
million in funds for the Memorial (for a total
authorization of $17.25 million). Additionally,
the bill eliminated restrictions on the use
of funds for construction of the Gateway
Arch itself. While the bill did not provide
for immediate appropriation of the money,
Congress provided clear evidence that the
Memorial would be funded and built. With
construction near at hand, the National Park
Service named George B. Hartzog, Jr. to the
Memorial Superintendent position, following
the resignation of Julian Sports.
The 1959 NPS Master Plan Document
With a solution to the track relocation, limited
appropriations, and authorization for more
extensive funding, the site was ready for phys-
ical improvement. This meant following the
general plan set by Saarinen's revised proposal
and preparing the ground for construction of
the Gateway Arch. While the dominant feature
of the plan remained an arch located in a park
setting, programming for the site continued to
shift and cause alterations to the plan. 64
George Hartzog took office on February 1,
1959, and immediately set about the tasks of
planning and scheduling necessary to move
the project ahead. A key part of all this was
the completion of a document detailing
the Memorial's development program and
associated policies. Titled Guidelines for the
Master Plan, Jefferson National Expansion
Memorial, the document was revealed to the
press and city officials at a meeting in the
Old Courthouse on March 10, 1959; it was
well received and approved by NPS Director
Conrad Wirth in October of the same year.
While clarifying the primacy of the Saarinen
arch and scheme, the NPS Master Plan
furnished new ideas for a museum and other
2-28 / SITE PHYSICAL HISTORY
JEFFERSON NATIONAL EXPANSION MEMORIAL CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT
interpretive features on-site. In conjunction
with Saarinen, it was decided that a historical
museum was to be included, and that this
"Museum of Westward Expansion" was to
be housed in a visitor center located beneath
the promenade at the foot of the Gateway
Arch (see Figure 2.21). 65 In addition, two river
overlooks at the north and south ends of the
Memorial were to contain exhibits concerning
the importance of the river and the railroad in
relation to westward expansion.
The plan also required the removal of any
remaining buildings and parking lots on the
grounds, except the Old Courthouse, the
Old Cathedral, and the Old Rock House
which was to be reconstructed near the south
overlook. A later determination was made not
to reassemble the Old Rock House; after it was
dismantled, many felt that its integrity rested
with its original site, which could no longer
accommodate the structure. It was decided
instead that the Old Rock House was to be
dismantled. The Old Courthouse continued to
serve as the NPS administrative and opera-
tional headquarters for the area, and to include
interpretive elements on the structure's history
and St. Louis' role in westward expansion.
Other interpretive devices called for trail
systems within the planted areas, relating to
the Oregon and Santa Fe Trails. 66 As for the
Memorial's role in the city, the plan restricted
the location of city-constructed and operated
parking facilities to the north or south end of
the Memorial, although the plan made it clear
that the Memorial was not to be developed and
function as another city park. 67
This matter of the Memorial's relation to the
city, however, was extremely important to
Saarinen, and therefore, he continued to work
with city officials on the zoning of property
near the Memorial, a consideration which
began shortly after the competition victory.
Saarinen believed that much of the Memorial's
success depended upon the harmonious devel-
opment of adjacent areas, including the design
of a new bridge to handle a proposed interstate
highway. The initial result of these efforts
was a "gentleman's agreement" to place a
fifteen block area west of the Memorial under
redevelopment, coupled with a decision by the
city to restrict structures facing the Memorial
to a height of 275 feet. A 1967 city ordinance
raised the height limit to 306 feet and defined
the peripheral area as a new zoning district
known as the Jefferson Memorial District. In
response, Saarinen chose to increase the height
of the Gateway Arch from 590 feet to 630 feet
in order to maintain its architectural presence.
Figure 2.21. Eero Saarinen & Associates, design development site plan, April 1959. (JNEM Archives, uncata-
logued collection)
JEFFERSON NATIONAL EXPANSION MEMORIAL CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT
SITE PHYSICAL HISTORY / 2-29
Groundbreaking
By the end of April, the National Park Service
approved plans and specifications for the
railroad's relocation as the first phase in
the Memorial's development program, and
accepted both the railroad's and the city's
financial contributions to the track reloca-
tion. Following the Missouri Public Service
Commission's formal hearing on the plans
and specifications, the National Park Service
accepted bids and awarded a contract for the
work. The first phase of construction had at
last cleared all hurdles, and at 10:30 A.M. on
Tuesday, June 23, 1959, special ceremonies
marked the opening of Memorial construc-
tion. On hand were St. Louis Mayor Raymond
Tucker, who played a significant role in the
railroad negotiations, NPS Director Conrad
Wirth, and former Mayor Bernard Dickmann.
Serious Planning
Construction on the first phase of develop-
ment was well under way by the end of 1959,
beginning with the excavation of the railroad
tunnels, and a completion date of 1964 was
anticipated for the Memorial (in time for
the 200th anniversary of the founding of St.
Louis). Therefore, Saarinen needed to move
rapidly ahead on detailed plans for various
features of the Memorial, consisting of the
Gateway Arch, the visitor center, and the
overlooks. This required a reinvestigation
of the site plan. To proceed, however, he
needed detailed data from the National Park
Service on administrative, interpretive, and
maintenance requirements for the Memorial.
This prompted the National Park Service to
begin a new round of planning studies in i960,
continuing through 1962.
With the project moving ahead at a quickening
pace, Saarinen again looked to Kiley. In a letter
dated October 17, 1959, he addressed Kiley's
expected role:
"We are sending you ... the site plan of the St.
Louis project in its present state. This site plan
has finally been approved and it looks as if the
project is getting serious now. The railroad
tunnel, that is, the relocation of the railroad
tracks, is already under contract. Some time
after the first of the year we want to get serious
about the overall planning and would like to
consult with you on landscaping." 68
1960 — Construction Begins —
Initial Planting Plan Proposals
Beginning in i960, the National Park Service
began its most intensive research and planning
work on the historical aspects of the Memorial.
This included the ongoing restoration of
historic buildings; planning for exhibits and
the installation of the museum's proposed
interpretive units; and even an archaeological
investigation of the Old St. Louis site. Rapid
yet comprehensive planning was essential,
as construction on the first phase of the
Memorial was well under way and the 1964
completion date had been publicly announced.
The museum planning, however, soon came
to represent only one aspect of the complexity
of the project. Construction, on -going funding
battles, intense planning and programming,
and a strict time limit required supreme
coordination. Budgetary concerns were also
being hinted at by the year's end. 6 '
With the National Park Service pursuing its
studies, in January contracts were issued to
Saarinen for design, working drawings, super-
vision, and preliminary drawings for the visitor
center and Gateway Arch. Kiley was once
again heavily involved in the project, officially
as the Site and Landscape Consultant, and as
such became involved in meetings with NPS
representatives and proceeded with develop-
ment of the landscape plan. 70
Construction Schedules, Budget Constraints,
and Funding Battles
Under the seemingly tight 1964 completion
deadline for the Gateway Arch, a debate
emerged as to whether the Museum of
Western Expansion should be constructed in
conjunction with the Gateway Arch, or instead
be constructed and opened sometime later.
The latter option was frowned upon by many
involved in the Memorial's development, but
especially Superintendent Hartzog. He under-
stood the Gateway Arch and the Museum of
Western Expansion to be wholly dependent
upon one other, and it appeared that the
Museum of Western Expansion was on the
verge of being relegated to secondary status.
2-30 / SITE PHYSICAL HISTORY
JEFFERSON NATIONAL EXPANSION MEMORIAL CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT
Yet, others felt that the complex engineering
of the Gateway Arch (requiring "the best
technical minds in structural design and erec-
tion, both here and in Europe ... to produce
this marvel of modern technology") and the
on -going Museum of Western Expansion
research and planning suggested a later
construction date. 7 ' Hartzog battled strongly
for simultaneous development and won the
support and decision of Director Wirth.
In the midst of this debate, however, rising
costs came to the forefront, and Director
Wirth decided that the overall program for the
Memorial was to be confined to that which was
essential to completing the principal elements
of Saarinen's plan. As a result, certain features
were pared down, including plans for the
complete restoration of the Old Courthouse
and construction of the grand staircase.
Scheduling and budgetary concerns were
compounded by the fact that federal money
was appropriated only for the first phase of
development, consisting primarily of the
track relocation. Although the bill signed by
President Eisenhower in 1958 authorized the
expenditure of $17.25 million on the Memorial,
little of this money had yet been appropriated.
In i960, despite the best efforts of St. Louis
Mayor Raymond Tucker, the U.S. Territorial
Expansion Memorial Commission and others,
only $4.6 million could be gained, just enough
to continue Memorial development at a
minimum for the fiscal years i960 and 1961.
The Planting Design —
The Oregon and Santa Fe Trails and
Detailed Planting Studies
Saarinen and Kiley did not anticipate the
impact that growing budget constraints and
the priority given to the Museum of Western
Expansion would soon have on the landscape
program. Therefore, they continued in their
understanding that the landscape treatment of
the site, both conceptually and in detail, was
integral to the Memorial's development. With
the design of the Gateway Arch and the main
features of the site plan essentially set through
the 1957-1959 redesign and with modifications
derived from the 1959 Master Plan, the time
had arrived to consider more comprehensively
and with greater specificity the finished quality
of the site. This was Kiley's job, and he rightly
considered how the overall landscape plan
could best be articulated so as to not only
provide the proper setting for the Gateway
Arch, but also build upon the symbolic, inter-
pretive, and experiential qualities of the site.
A much-discussed aspect of the landscape
plan at this stage was the concept of site trails,
identified in the 1959 Master Plan document
as interpretive elements relating to the Oregon
and Santa Fe Trails, and which seemed to
play into Saarinen's 1947-1948 concept of
village recreations as specified in the original
competition criteria. With the elimination of
the village reproductions in the 1957 redesign,
however, the trail idea was retained and greatly
emphasized. 72
In response, Kiley's office prepared a
schematic plan and section drawings with
elaborate mounding, featuring up to 40-foot
grade changes and scaled interpretation of
the historic trails (see Figures 2.22 and 2.23). 73
Yet, in response to this effort to create a literal
reproduction of the trails as a miniature cross
section of the United States and its dramatic
mountain ranges, the National Park Service
expressed unease. At a presentation of these
drawings in late March i960, it was suggested
that the Oregon and Santa Fe Trails be treated
in a less literal sense and instead be thought
of as a guide to exhibits located in the trail
area. Other suggestions were made as well: the
planting of cottonwood trees, buffalo grasses,
and other western botanical references to
highlight the trails and the interpretive experi-
ence; and the more strategic use of earthen
mounds to screen the two main planted areas
incorporating the trails from the proposed
Third Street Expressway. 74
Regardless of this brief focus on an elaborate
interpretive trail system, Kiley continued
working with the main idea of providing a
forested setting for the Gateway Arch. This
allowed Kiley the flexibility to quickly abandon
the overly literal quality of the Oregon and
Santa Fe Trail scheme and focus on the essence
of the idea. In effect, visitors were to make
their way through the forest, encountering
clearings for special features such as the ponds,
which first found their way into the site plan
beginning in 1957. This idea of clearings in a
forest as places for special happenings had
JEFFERSON NATIONAL EXPANSION MEMORIAL CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT
SITE PHYSICAL HISTORY / 2-31
been present in Kiley's and Saarinen's concept
for the Memorial since the earliest days of the
competition, and a revised planting plan soon
emerged which reconfirmed the commitment
to this ideal and eliminated the fanciful quality
of the trails (see Figure 2.24). 75
At the same time, Kiley's office prepared
more detailed plans for the areas immediately
surrounding the railroad cuts, specifying
particular plant species to visually screen these
rather intrusive features (see Figure 2.25)7 6 By
September i960, the detailed plans addressing
the railroad cuts, and a revised conceptual
landscape plan for the site were prepared and
again presented to the National Park Service
at a meeting in which Director Wirth was
in attendance." Apparently, Wirth was not
pleased with the result, largely due to looming
budget problems, but the full consequences
of his displeasure would not be made known
to Saarinen and Kiley until the following year.
Thus, much as the railroad problem caused
a reassessment of the competition site plan,
outside constraints would soon cause a reas-
sessment of the landscape plan.
Highway and Railroad Considerations
While Kiley was engaged in the development
of the landscape plan, Saarinen remained
vigilant in affecting development peripheral to
the Memorial site. In particular, the proposed
interstate highway bridge to be located south
of the Memorial area attracted Saarinen's
attention. He felt that this bridge could be a
positive addition, working with the Eads Bridge
north of the Memorial area to tie the complex
together. Of course, he was concerned with the
aesthetics of the bridge and that the design be
sympathetic to the Memorial. As a result tenta-
tive discussions were held which suggested
depressing the expressway approaches on the
Missouri side of the river.
The NPS also remained concerned with the
remaining surface railroad lines running east
of the Memorial, and in i960 made a decision
to pursue the relocation of these tracks. A
primary consideration was to provide ample
street width along the levee in order to accom-
modate automobile traffic. It was agreed by
the affected parties that this could be accom-
plished through the consolidation of the three
existing tracks into one track, a relatively easy
determination by comparison to the railroad
controversies of previous years. Saarinen
and Kiley imagined this area as becoming a
tree-lined boulevard with the rail line running
down the middle. The boulevard would act
as a transitional element between riverfront
activities and the Memorial. 78
The year i960 ended with success on many
fronts. Museum planning was on track,
budget concerns were resolved, a landscape
plan to complement prior site planning was
developed, and potentially divisive issues
Figure 2.22. Office of Dan Kiley, schematic planting plan, February i960. (JNEM Archives, uncatalogued
collection)
2-32 / SITE PHYSICAL HISTORY
JEFFERSON NATIONAL EXPANSION MEMORIAL CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT
^^sxC^^^sj^iSlk^^^^^l-
FVFr sc-r< nrv 4
tM^^r
G~.
. w v*r m w m-*Y *•?
Idem R-vr dd hi
Figure 2.23. Office of DanKiley, sectional studies, February i960. (JNEM Archives, uncatalogued collection)
Jl IUUUI
Figure 2.24. Eero Saarinen & Associates, revised site plan, August i960. (JNEM Archives, uncatalogued
collection)
Figure 2.25. Office of Dan Kiley, planting plan of areas adjacent to railroad cuts, August i960. (JNEM Archives,
uncatalogued collection)
JEFFERSON NATIONAL EXPANSION MEMORIAL CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT
SITE PHYSICAL HISTORY / 2-33
of peripheral development were settled in
favor of the Memorial. Moreover, construc-
tion was proceeding well; the railroad
relocation contract was approximately 50
percent complete by the end of the year,
and the National Park Service was ready to
award a contract for the levee construction.
Appropriating funds from Congress appeared
to be the only obstacle to timely completion of
the Memorial project.
1961-1964 - Refining the Planting Plan
Although i960 ended on a positive note for the
Memorial's development, budget constraints
continually delayed the project and forced
ongoing cutbacks. By 1964, it was apparent
that the landscape program would be the big
loser. Ironically, after the funding struggles of
the previous year, significant money was finally
appropriated in 1961. 79
Substantial Federal Funds
On August 3, 1961, President Kennedy signed
the 1962 fiscal year Interior Department
Appropriation Bill which included approxi-
mately $9.5 million for construction of the
Memorial, an amount which covered almost
the entirety of the remaining authorized
federal moneys. Congressional approval was
eased by project backers such as St. Louis
Mayor Raymond Tucker, who guaranteed that
the Memorial would be finished within the
amount of the $17.5 million federal authoriza-
tion. As of December 1961, the total authoriza-
tion of funds from a combination of federal
and local sources stood at $23 million, with
about S3.3 million remaining to be appropri-
ated. This was in addition to the approximately
$9 million spent between 1935 and 1959.
Preserving the Basic Design
In order to keep within the promised budget
limit, Saarinen pursued further alterations
to the plan while attempting to preserve its
basic concept and retain a workable program
in regard to the Memorial's function and
operation. As a result, Saarinen deleted certain
details and finishes, and cut back the square
footage of finished exhibit space. This was not
enough; NPS Director Wirth's cutbacks were
more decisive.
Wirth agreed that certain desirable but nones-
sential elements would have to be eliminated
to keep under budget and directed additional
cost reductions while expanding the role of
the National Park Service in the Memorial's
design and development. Among the changes,
it was decided to separate the contract for
the interior construction of the Museum
of Western Expansion from the contract to
cover construction of the Gateway Arch and
the shell of the visitor center and Museum
of Western Expansion. This was to accom-
modate complete design of the exhibit spaces
and exhibits by the National Park Service. A
reduction in the scale of the north and south
overlooks was also ordered.
Especially difficult for Saarinen, Director
Wirth required that the landscape and utility
programs be greatly reduced, anticipating that
Jefferson National Expansion Memorial could
solicit donations for the landscape program.
Yet, Wirth's directive went even further; the
landscape program was to be undertaken by
the National Park Service, and Wirth stated
that no dunes, mounds, or lagoons should
be included in the landscaping despite their
presence in Saarinen's design. 80 In effect, it
seems that Kiley was to be removed from the
project despite the need for a major reconsid-
eration of the planting program. 81 By the end
of 1961, planning, bidding, and work schedules
were effectively complete, consistent with
Wirth's cost reductions. Construction work
was divided into four phases. Phase I primarily
involved relocation of the tracks and was
nearly complete, with operation of the trains
on the relocated tracks beginning at year's end.
Phase II began early in 1961 and consisted of
museum planning, levee redevelopment with
construction of the north and south overlooks,
construction of the Gateway Arch foundations,
and the visitor center/Museum of Western
Expansion excavations. Phase III was to cover
construction of the Gateway Arch and the
visitor center/Museum of Western Expansion,
and a portion of the final landscaping. Phase
IV would involve the final landscaping. A
completion date of 1964 was still envisioned.
While project proponents, especially Saarinen,
battled to retain the essence of the Memorial
design, a greater tragedy struck. Eero Saarinen
died suddenly and unexpectedly of a brain
2-34 / SITE PHYSICAL HISTORY
JEFFERSON NATIONAL EXPANSION MEMORIAL CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT
tumor on September 1, 1961, at Ann Arbor,
Michigan. Many of those who knew Saarinen
believed he was entering his most productive
years, and mourned the loss of a great archi-
tect. His partners, Joseph Lacy, John Dinkeloo,
and Kevin Roche supervised the completion
of Saarinen's projects, including the Gateway
Arch. Because the site planning and Gateway
Arch design were by this time essentially set,
his death did not result in radical changes to
the concept and design. Nonetheless, prior to
Saarinen's death he found the need to argue
for the necessity of retaining Dan Kiley to
prepare the landscape plan, a collaboration
and a plan he always viewed as imperative to
the Memorial's success. In many respects,
Saarinen was successful in this regard, but as
the final phase of development, the landscape
design of the site was the most compromised
and most delayed.
The Planting Program
Director Wirth's decisions to scale back the
Memorial's development program directly
affected Kiley, especially the decision to have
NPS staff oversee the landscaping program.
This revealed an important area of disagree-
ment between the National Park Service
and Saarinen in dealing with the budget
constraints. To Saarinen, the Gateway Arch was
the most important aspect of the Memorial
design, followed by the landscaping of the
grounds, a reflection of the original conception
of the Gateway Arch within a wooded setting.
The National Park Service, on the other hand,
felt that the Gateway Arch and the Museum
of Western Expansion were the most crucial
aspects of the Memorial, evident in Hartzog's
desire to see museum development keep pace
with the Gateway Arch construction. 82
While Wirth wished to make better use of
the NPS staff for planning and architecture,
Saarinen remained loyal to Kiley and his
contribution to the project, and sought to
modify Wirth's decision as it would clearly
minimize Kiley's role. He instead desired
that Kiley at least be retained for the design
work, and from this work the NPS staff could
prepare working drawings and specifications,
and supervise landscape installation. Saarinen
wrote to Kiley: "I will also appeal to him on the
basis that you were part of the competition, on
the basis that it is such an essential part of the
architecture, that it is impossible to work with a
new person, etc."* 3 Meanwhile, the Kiley office
continued its research into appropriate plant
species for the area, apparently anticipating a
continued role in the design process. 84
Saarinen, however, was well aware of the
budgetary constraints, and addressed the
matter by asking Kiley to alter his prelimi-
nary landscape plan according to Wirth's
requested changes. As Saarinen viewed it,
Wirth presented three criticisms of the plan: 1)
he disapproved of the extensively sculptured
ground because the expressway was to be
depressed and therefore not create a noise
problem; 2) he did not favor the extensive use
of underbrush because of policing problems,
nor did he care for the use of tall trees for
reasons of cost; and 3) "He did not at all like
the budget." Saarinen continued in his letter
to Kiley: "I will take full responsibility for the
amounts and promise to eliminate them and
I think it would be well for you to think of
eliminating the underbrush and agreeing to
work within a practical budget." 85
In response, Kiley agreed to abide by these
constraints, but clearly unhappy, indicated
that the Memorial's design intent was compro-
mised. He wondered "Is there not some way
based on the rules of the competition that we
can insist on doing the work based on our own
design philosophy ... I do feel the tall tree forest
covering the whole site is the most important
landscape design element and regardless of
what happens, I hope that you can retain
that." 86
Although Saarinen was successful in retaining
Kiley for conceptual landscape design services
on the Memorial, it was clear that the planting
plan would have to be reconsidered in light of
the increasing budget constraints. 87
Late 1961 and early 1962 was a time of
regrouping for the design team, following
Saarinen's death, with Kevin Roche of the
Saarinen office meeting with Kiley's office to
reassess the landscape design. 88 From this point
until the final planting plan was completed in
late 1964, there was consistent activity from
Kiley's office in preparing planting plan varia-
tions (see Figure 2.26). Yet, by the end of 1962,
JEFFERSON NATIONAL EXPANSION MEMORIAL CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT
SITE PHYSICAL HISTORY / 2-35
the conceptual plan for the planting of the
Memorial shifted considerably, and the varia-
tions revolved around a common conception, a
planting of forest and meadow.
Budget constraints forced Kiley to reas-
sesses the relationship of forest to clearing,
as the opportunities to create special site
features and an extensive, tall tree forest
were lost. As a result, the curvilinear scheme
for the walks remained the same, set by the
Memorial's earlier site planning, but much
else changed. The remainder of the site,
which had always been presented as heavily
forested, was changed to depict areas both as
heavily forested areas and two extensive open
meadows. Kiley intended to present a contrast
between the open meadow and forested area, a
simple presentation of nature.
But the most important aspect of the planting
plan remained the idea of forest as setting for
the Memorial, and rather than relying on the
entire site to emphasize this relationship, it was
to be most strongly emphasized through the
trees lining the curvilinear walkways. To create
this effect, Kiley proposed lines of closely
spaced tulip poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera)
trees three rows deep for most of the length of
the walks. Thus, the character of the walkways
themselves changed in the sense that the walks
became more heavily lined with trees than
prior plans had shown.
The new conception first emerged in a series
of drawings prepared by Peter Ker Walker
of the Kiley office in late 1962, watercolor
renderings completed as part of a promotional
package requested by the National Park
Service. Included were a plan and perspective
drawings featuring views of the Gateway Arch
in different seasons of the year (see Figures
2.27 through 2.31). 89 The National Park Service,
however, was dissatisfied with the plans, their
quality, and that the main walks were too
heavily planted with trees, and wished to see
their numbers reduced so as to better afford
views of the Gateway Arch along the walks. 9 " In
this matter the National Park Service failed to
understand Kiley's thinking about movement
and "spatial continuity." 91 Future variations
of the plan continued to feature curvilinear
walks heavily lined with multiple rows of tulip
poplars.
Planting Plan Variations and Plant Research
A new set of drawings was prepared by Kiley's
office for a March 18, 1963 meeting with the
National Park Service. At this time it was
agreed that the tree massing should reinforce
the plan of the walks, and that the plan should
Figure 2.26. Office of Dan Kiley, schematic planting plan, December 1961. (JNEM Archives, uncatalogued
collection)
2-36 / SITE PHYSICAL HISTORY
JEFFERSON NATIONAL EXPANSION MEMORIAL CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT
hold to the concept of contrasting closed
spaces and open areas; thus Kiley's basic
conception was accepted. Therefore, while
the National Park Service was concerned
that the Kiley office review their proposed
plant species with a materials list provided
by the City of St. Louis, Department of
Parks, Forestry and Recreation, Kiley and the
National Park Service were approaching a
planting plan suitable to both parties.' 2 Over
the course of the next few months, the plan
changed through the incorporation of new
alignments to the expressway and the paths
leading to the Old Courthouse. Earlier in the
year, Saarinen's office had already explored
a variety of schemes for bringing pedestrians
across the expressway from the Memorial to
the Old Courthouse.
Although certain species such as the tulip
poplar were favored in earlier schemes, plant
species were finally decided upon only after
much further investigation, accounting for
earlier research efforts and responding to NPS
requests. In 1963, while the planting plan was
evolving in accordance with the new concep-
tion, Kiley's office again contacted numerous
sources for input on proposed species,
including the Missouri Botanical Garden, and
the City of St. Louis, Department of Parks,
Recreation and Forestry. 93 The responses were
favorable to the species chosen, with a few
exceptions, and Kiley relied on the informa-
tion provided, with one exception. One of the
sources contacted was Harland Bartholomew
and Associates (HB&A), a planning and land-
scape architecture office located in St. Louis.
Their office recommended against the use of
the tulip poplar on aesthetic grounds, the only
source contacted which answered negatively.
"The Tulip Tree loses its leaves very early here,"
they noted. "Because so many other trees
put on a very fine leaf show for us, it seems a
shame to devote any space to this one. I would
omit it completely." 94 In the final planting plan
from Kiley's office, approved by the National
Park Service, the tulip poplar remained. The
tulip poplar had too many other qualities that
recommended its retention, such as its scale,
stature, and fast growth, which Kiley found
essential to the design (see Figure 2.32).
By September 1963, a new set of presentation
drawings was complete, including a sequence
of study sketches depicting views throughout
the Memorial (Figure 2.33). These sketch views
included studies of ponds (which had disap-
peared following Wirth's landscape cutbacks
in 1961) within the Memorial site, which had
returned as reconsidered elements on some
of the drawings (Figure 2.34). 95 Robert G. Hall,
chief of the NPS Eastern Office of Design and
Figure 2.27. Office of Dan Kiley, design development plan (watercolor), December 1962. (JNEM Archives, refer-
ence photograph collection)
JEFFERSON NATIONAL EXPANSION MEMORIAL CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT
SITE PHYSICAL HISTORY / 2-37
Figure 2.28. Office of Dan Kiley, "Approach to Gateway Arch from Southwest, Summer," design development
drawing, December 1962. (JNEM Archives, uncatalogued collection)
Figure 2.29. Office of Dan Kiley, "Wharf Street Looking North, Autumn," design development drawing,
December 1962. (JNEM Archives, uncatalogued collection)
2-38 / SITE PHYSICAL HISTORY
JEFFERSON NATIONAL EXPANSION MEMORIAL CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT
■ '
-.*--..■
■ \
Figure 2.30. Office of Dan Kiley, "View Towards Arch from C-C," design develop-
ment drawing, December 1962. (JNEM Archives, uncatalogued collection)
JEFFERSON NATIONAL EXPANSION MEMORIAL CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT
SITE PHYSICAL HISTORY / 2-39
Construction (EODC), responded favorably to
the plans, although he expressed some reserva-
tions about the ponds: "Mr. Kiley did a very
fine job presenting the revised plans, and we
are most happy with the results." Some minor
modifications were requested as the design
of the pedestrian bridges over the expressway
was still in flux.' 6 Nevertheless, a major hurdle
had been crossed. On November 4, 1964, the
Office of Dan Kiley shipped the final concep-
tual landscape drawings to the National Park
Service for approval. 97
Construction on the Memorial proceeded
apart from a finished planting plan, as it had
already been decided that the landscape
program would be a subordinate phase of
development. On March 14, 1962, Director
Wirth signed the contract for construction of
the Gateway Arch, and the first concrete for the
foundations was poured on June 27 of the same
year. Yet, by the end of 1962, financial troubles
emerged more seriously than before.
Although extensive cutbacks in the project
had been decided upon during the previous
year, it was becoming evident that the cost of
the Memorial project would exceed original
estimates. As a result, the National Park
Service decided that it would have to change
its stand and request congressional funds
above the limit that had been promised. Wirth
recognized that this would be an inevitable
outcome if the project was to be completed
in accordance with the basic plan. Even so,
funding from other sources was pursued. For
instance, through a bond issue, the Bi-State
Development Agency (established by the states
of Missouri and Illinois to promote planning
in and around St. Louis) provided for the
construction of the transportation system to
take visitors to the top of the Gateway Arch.
This was critical, as the transportation system
was regarded as a key public attraction and
there were no federal or local funds to build it.
The new construction stirred up interest from
the press and surrounding community, and
the first stainless steel section of the Gateway
Arch was set in place on February 12, 1963.
By the end of that year the north leg of the
Gateway Arch stood at 168 feet, and the south
leg measured 120 feet. In addition, Phase I and
Phase II of the Memorial's construction were
essentially complete by the end of 1963, and
NPS staff had made considerable progress
toward completion of the research, planning,
design, and specifications for exhibition units.
Work on the Third Street Expressway also
began in 1963, following plans to depress the
expressway in front of the Memorial.
Figure 2.31. Office of Dan Kiley, "View from East St. Louis," design development drawing, December 1962.
(JNEM Archives, uncatalogued collection)
2-40 / SITE PHYSICAL HISTORY
JEFFERSON NATIONAL EXPANSION MEMORIAL CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT
z
c
c
a.
T3
a
c
a
c
c
c
o
.&=
JEFFERSON NATIONAL EXPANSION MEMORIAL CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT
SITE PHYSICAL HISTORY / 2-41
Figure 2.33. Office of DanKiley, study sketches of proposed views within the Jefferson National Expansion
Memorial, September 1963. (JNEM Archives, uncatalogued collection)
2-42 / SITE PHYSICAL HISTORY
JEFFERSON NATIONAL EXPANSION MEMORIAL CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT
3
o
z
C
o
Z
c
c
o
SO
JEFFERSON NATIONAL EXPANSION MEMORIAL CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT
SITE PHYSICAL HISTORY / 2-43
Despite work stoppages along the way,
including a delay to check the structure's
stability, the north leg of the Gateway Arch
reached almost 326 feet high and the south
leg just over 347 feet by the end of 1964. 98
Nonetheless, with the passing of the city's
200th anniversary, and public interest at its
height because of the ongoing construction,
pressures to complete the Memorial and to do
so rapidly were extreme. By this time, however,
the National Park Service would give no
assurances regarding the completion date, and
was preparing to seek additional funds from
Congress.
1965-1966- Kiley's Final Plan Approved
In 1965 the pursuit of federal funds was
renewed, this time in excess of the ceiling
established with the $17.25 million authoriza-
tion. With George Hartzog, Jr. as the new
Director of the National Park Service, an
increase to $23.25 million in authorized funds
was sought. He felt that the additional $6
million would place the National Park Service
in excellent financial shape to finish the project
in accordance with the basic elements desired;
he especially wished to see the Museum of
Westward Expansion completed in a timely
fashion. Meanwhile Mayor Raymond Tucker
hoped that the additional funds would permit
the construction of the grand staircase leading
from the river to the Gateway Arch, which had
previously been cut from the development
program. With the backing of senators from a
number of states, President Lyndon Johnson
signed a bill on October 19, 1965, authorizing
the additional funds."
The Gateway Arch's Last Section
The last section of the Gateway Arch was put
in place at a public ceremony marking the
occasion on October 28, 1965; with this section
added, the Gateway Arch structure stood
complete at 630 feet above the city. Much work
remained to be done until the Memorial's
dedication, including interior work on the
Gateway Arch itself, such as completion of
the all-important transportation system. In
fact, due to the various struggles in acquiring
funds and completing the work, the Memorial
was not dedicated until May 25, 1968, twenty
years to the day after the U.S. Territorial
Expansion Memorial Commission accepted
Eero Saarinen's design for the Gateway Arch.
Even with the dedication, two crucial elements
remained incomplete that were certainly vital
to Saarinen's complete conception: 1) the
landscaping of the grounds and 2) the Museum
of Westward Expansion.
Kiley's Final Planting Plan
The conceptual planting plan, which Saarinen
fought to have Kiley prepare, was eventually
completed and approved in accordance with
the ideas explored and settled upon during
the previous few years. Approval came in the
form of the printed signature of NPS Director
George Hartzog on the final plan drawing on
February 2, 1966 (see Figure 2.35). 100 This then
was to be the plan to guide the future land-
scaping of the Memorial grounds, a plan which
in certain respects would be deviated from
over the years.
The plan as approved reveals and reinforces
the site planning strategy largely devised by
Saarinen. The roughly bilateral form is clear,
as are the sweeping curves of the walkways
which reflect the form of the Gateway Arch.
Emphasizing this structure were Kiley's
proposed tulip poplars, typically planted in
three parallel rows, which line the major walks
and bring the Old Courthouse into the whole
composition. The remainder of the site takes
the quality of the tall forest and low meadow,
areas densely planted with tall trees and flow-
ering trees at the edges that are distinct from
two large and open grass areas. The ascending
quality of the tulip poplar, tightly planted in
a regular fashion, dominates the remaining
wooded areas mixing white oak (Quercus
alba), red oak (Quercus rubra), hackberry
(Celtis occidentalis), and maidenhair or ginkgo
tree (Gingko biloba); the tulip poplar is the one
tree that dominates Kiley's abstracted forest.
Only the tulip poplar has the stature to bring
the pedestrian into direct relation with the
immense Gateway Arch.
Along the wooded edge and leading into the
meadows are flowering trees, primarily eastern
redbud (Cercis canadensis) and flowering
dogwood (Cornus florida) for color and
texture. The lagoons, which Conrad Wirth
initially ordered removed, reemerge in the
2-44 / SITE PHYSICAL HISTORY
JEFFERSON NATIONAL EXPANSION MEMORIAL CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT
J!!l!!l> | J j |
■ 111
Mill]!
Mm
JEFFERSON NATIONAL EXPANSION MEMORIAL CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT
SITE PHYSICAL HISTORY / 2-45
midst of either meadow as large ponds with a
complex form and extensive outline. The form
of the lagoons might be described as idiosyn-
cratic; the water's edge interacts with the edges
of Kiley's forest to create intimate spaces. In
the completed Kiley plan the composition
becomes the unified and serene park setting
initially envisioned for Saarinen's majestic
Gateway Arch.
1966-1978 — Construction Document
Preparation
Upon Director Hartzog's approval of Dan
Kiley's design development plan, it was
forwarded to the NPS EODC in Philadelphia.
Careful analysis of both the 1966 approved
Kiley plan and the NPS first phase develop-
ment plan revealed that revisions to the plant
composition and open space, as well as other
seemingly minor alterations to the plan during
the preparation of construction documents,
ultimately clouded the original design
intent. Documentation of the preparation of
construction documents and specifications,
the contractors involved, and the modifications
which were made to the plan are provided
below.
NPS Modifications
Construction documents and specifications
based on the 1966 approved plans were
completed over a 12-year period by the NPS
design and construction offices and by a local
St. Louis firm, HB&A. Financial opportunities
and constraints at different times during the
long implementation process of the project
required reformatting of the drawings into
different bidding packages. Because the
implementation of the landscape develop-
ment spanned 12 years and the hands of many
different professionals, the history can be quite
confusing. The following section documents
the National Park Service and HB&A's role in
the design development of the Gateway Arch
landscape.
Financial and programmatic delays held
the project up until 1969. It was in April,
in the NPS's San Francisco Planning and
Design Office, that Landscape Architect John
Ronscavage led the development of construc-
tion drawings and specifications for the
landscape surrounding the Gateway Arch.""
According to Mr. Ronscavage, the National
Park Service had every intention of following
Kiley's approved design development plan as
closely as possible. 102
It was no secret that St. Louisans were
unhappy about the dismal landscape
surrounding their newly constructed $14.5
million Gateway Arch. 103 In response to their
concerns, John Ronscavage and the design
team focused on preparing construction
documents for as much of the landscaping as
the budget would allow. The initial package
prepared for bidding purposes included both
grading and planting of the north-south axis
of the Gateway Arch, as well as repairs to
the visitor center roof (waterproofing), and
drainage (see Figure 2.36). The design team
hoped that completion of this work would
change the appearance of the Gateway Arch
grounds considerably and temporarily satisfy
the local community.
The construction documents were completed
in August 1969.' 04 Several differences between
these and the approved design development
plan were noticeable. First, the design team
removed the lagoons from the plan because
at that time money was not available for their
construction. They also removed fountains on
either end of the park for the same reason. 105
The plant list remained the same except for
the substitution of white pine (Pinus strobus)
and Austrian pine (Pinus nigra) for Canada
hemlock (Tsuga canadensis). 1 " 6 The substitu-
tion resulted from discussions between the
National Park Service and the City Forestry
Department in which they noted Canada
hemlock was not suited to the conditions at
the Memorial site (acid soils are necessary and
they are intolerant of wind and pollution). 107
A second notable revision came in January
1970 with another change to the plant list. The
design team removed the ginkgo tree from the
list. The reason for this is unknown and seems
unusual because correspondence dated after
January 1970 suggested that the ginkgo was
a suitable tree for the on-site conditions and
was previously approved by the National Park
Service. 108 Nonetheless, the bidding package
was put together using these drawings and
2-46 / SITE PHYSICAL HISTORY
JEFFERSON NATIONAL EXPANSION MEMORIAL CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT
"Site Development Phase I" was scheduled to
open for bids on March 19, 1970.
Plant Substitutions
Before the official opening of bids for the first
phase of landscaping took place, NPS plans
and specifications met with criticism. In a
March 12, 1970 article in the St. Louis Globe-
Democrat, members of the Greater St. Louis
Nurserymen's Association publicly criticized
the heavy use of tulip poplars. 10 ' Several other
nurserymen confirmed that St. Louis was the
"northernmost boundary" for the tulip poplar
and that it would "leaf scorch and drop leaves
all summer long ..." u ° Other concerns included
the risk of planting a monoculture, combining
earthwork, walk construction and planting
in the same contract, the large size of trees
specified, and restricting the source of plant
material to a 50-mile radius around St. Louis.
The article prompted public debate and local
citizens even wrote letters to their Missouri
congressmen. 111 Senator Thomas F. Eagleton
and Congressperson Leonor K. Sullivan
responded by contacting Director George
B. Hartzog and others to inquire about the
situation. 112 These inquiries were sent through
the appropriate channels for consideration.
All bids received for the work exceeded the
government estimate and therefore were
discarded. The design team repackaged the
proposal and eliminated the planting portion,
thereby buying time to deal with the contro-
versy over the plant list.
The repackaging resulted in three new sets of
construction documents, two new phases of
site development and one phase of planting.
The new "Site Development Phase I" consisted
of grading the north-south axis of the
Memorial, installing temporary crushed stone
walks, waterproofing the visitor center roof,
drainage, and seeding. 113 The final revision on
this drawing was made in April 1970 and the
work was contracted in June of the same year.
The second set of drawings, titled "Site
Development Phase II," consisted of water
mains, storm drainage, electrical distribu-
tion, paving roads and walkways, addition of
topsoil, lawn seeding, and planting wells for
the trees (all along the north-south axis of the
Gateway Arch). 114 This work was contracted
shortly after Phase I. Kiley's approved plan did
not specify paving materials for the walks, and
the National Park Service specified exposed
aggregate in these drawings. Exposed aggre-
gate was being used at nearby Kiener Plaza
and the team thought it would be appropriate
to use the same material on the Gateway Arch
grounds. 115
"Planting Phase I," dated August 1971,
consisted of planting trees on the east slope
of the railroad tunnels and along the walks
(see Figure 2.37). 116 By the time these draw-
Figure 2.36. Limits of construction, Phase I. (Bellavia, 1996)
JEFFERSON NATIONAL EXPANSION MEMORIAL CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT
SITE PHYSICAL HISTORY / 2-47
ings were completed, two of the three plants
specified for Phase I had been substituted.
The dominant plant species was changed
from the tulip poplar to the 'Rosehill' white
ash (Fraxinus americana 'Rosehill'), and the
Canada hemlock was replaced with Japanese
black pine (Pinus thunbergiana). These were
the final construction drawings developed by
the NPS design offices for the initial stages of
development.
The opposition to the selection of plant
materials came as a surprise to the design
team in 1970. Records indicate that Dan Kiley
contacted local experts regarding his proposed
plant list and only one response raised any
concern over the use of the tulip poplar, all
others approved of its use." 7 In fact, in 1961,
the St. Louis City Department of Parks,
Recreation, and Forestry shared their plant
materials list which listed the tulip poplar with
Superintendent George Hartzog. Moreover,
the NPS design team also contacted local
experts and again met with general approval.
For unknown reasons, objections to the
tulip poplar were not raised on these earlier
occasions but were clearly voiced when the
contract went out to bid.
The second issue was the restriction on the
source of plant material to within a 50-mile
radius of St. Louis. These limits were later
extended to a distance of 250 miles to the
north, east, and west. The 50-mile restriction
to the south remained. This specification was
developed based on a recommendation by the
City Forestry Department. In their experience,
plant materials from the south had a higher risk
of disease and were generally less hardy." 8
Raymond Freeman, Deputy Associate of
Professional Services, defended the NPS
design team from these criticisms." 9 He
contended the restriction of sources was not
discriminatory but followed a recommenda-
tion of the St. Louis Department of Parks,
Recreation, and Forestry. Freeman defended
the selection of plant species and combining
the site development and planting plan. He
claimed that the NPS landscape architect
informally discussed the proposed list with
Mr. Bielmann of Shaw's Garden (Missouri
Botanical Garden) and he considered the
selections satisfactory. 120 The City Forestry
Department also concurred. As for the scope
of the contract, the National Park Service felt
that small, separate contracts would be too
costly. By combining development phases into
one contract, administration and supervision
costs would be kept to a minimum.
In a letter to the Midwest Regional Director,
Superintendent Harry Pfanz, who supported
the NPS design team, showed concern over the
plant controversy:
"It is my opinion that the Service should review
the present plan and give due consideration
to the criticism it has received. In the course
of this review it should secure further advice
from Mr. Bielmann [of the Missouri Botanical
Garden] and other persons recognized as
Figure 2.37. Limits of phase I planting plan. (Bellavia, 1996)
2-48 / SITE PHYSICAL HISTORY
JEFFERSON NATIONAL EXPANSION MEMORIAL CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT
local experts. If at all possible whatever plan
is utilized should have the open support of
these men. If this is not done before the project
goes out for bids we shall encounter as much if
not more opposition than we received before
and in doing so will jeopardize the public's
confidence in us. Because we are using local
funds it is essential that this confidence be
maintained." 121
On Pfanz's recommendation, the NPS design
team contacted several local groups in St. Louis
including the Missouri Botanical Garden,
Missouri Department of Conservation,
University of Missouri Extension, St. Louis
Department of Parks, Recreation and Forestry,
City of St. Louis, and several prominent
nurserymen. 122 The planting plan was again
analyzed and revisions were recommended
to substitute the pin oak (Quercus palustris)
for the tulip poplar. Local nurserymen also
suggested that other species be interplanted
with the pin oak to avoid the use of a monocul-
ture and minimize the risks involved. The
design team and Glenn O. Hendrix, the Chief
of Planning and Design in San Francisco, were
clearly opposed to this:
"It was suggested by many of the experts to
include another species with the dominant
tree, rather than risk 1200 trees of a single
species to future insect or disease damage.
However, in view of the effect that is to be
achieved by the proposed plan, it would be
difficult to substitute another species, even
in the outer rows of trees surrounding the
walkway ... We request that particular atten-
tion be given to the dominant tree (Tuliptree)
controversy and our proposal to go all the way
with one species, the Pin Oak. We believe that
the plan would be weakened if the three rows
of trees at each walkway were mixed with two
or three species." 123
The Associate Director, in response to this
information, concurred with the recommenda-
tions but added his concerns regarding the
approved concept for the planting:
"While the proposed plant substitutions are
agreeable with this Office, we do wish to
retain the site development concept which the
Director approved in 1966 [referring to the
Kiley plan, Figure 2.35] ," 124
At the time the design team recommended
substituting the tulip poplar for the pin oak,
other plant substitutions were recommended
as well: the littleleaf linden (Tilia cordata)
and the basswood (Tilia americana) were
recommended to replace the oaks, which have
transplanting difficulties; and the goldenrain-
tree (Koelreuteria paniculata) or the Bradford
pear (Pyrus calleryana) were recommended to
replace the oriental cherry (Prunus serrulata),
which has borer problems. Approval was
granted by the NPS Associate Director in July
and he suggested that the Midwest Regional
Director issue a press release "to relieve the
present controversy." 125
Apparently the use of the pin oak as the
dominant tree on the levee also met with
criticism. 126 Ivan Parker, the newly appointed
Superintendent, met with Leonard Hall,
a St. Louis Globe-Democrat reporter and
conservationist who had written about the
plant controversy, to try to resolve the issue.
Hall disapproved of the new choice because
the alkalinity of the riverfront soil is high
and the pin oak thrives in acidic soil. 127 These
comments prompted further study of the new
proposal and the existing riverfront soil.
Original soil tests conducted by EODC
revealed that the riverfront soil was neutral,
with a pH of 7.0. In researching the revised
plant list, more soil studies were conducted.
Royce Lambert, Soils Conservationist for the
NPS Western Service Center, and the Soil
and Plant Laboratory at Palo Alto, California
conducted soil tests in the summer of 1971.
The results indicated that the soil was more
alkaline than previously reported with a pH of
7.5. 128 This initiated yet another review of the
proposed plant list, and more revisions.
The most significant change was once again
that of the dominant tree species. The pin
oak, proposed to flank the pedestrian walks,
tolerates a maximum pH of 6.5. 129 Clearly the
trees would not survive well. Again a meeting
was arranged with local plant authorities to
recommend a tree that would perform well
under the adverse urban conditions on the
riverfront. Ultimately, the 'Rosehill' white ash
was recommended to replace the pin oak. Its
dense green foliage and fall coloring, upright,
sturdy habit, fibrous root system, and tolerance
JEFFERSON NATIONAL EXPANSION MEMORIAL CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT
SITE PHYSICAL HISTORY / 2-49
of alkaline soils were noted qualities. 130 Borers
were recognized to be a common problem of
the ash but not considered a threat because of
the fast growth and natural resistance of the
Rosehill ash cultivar.
Other recommendations were also made
based on this study and the meeting of local
authorities. The Austrian pine was eliminated
because of a recent infestation of tip moth. The
flowering dogwood was still recommended for
moderate use, even though it preferred an acid
soil, because it was the state tree. Bradford pear
was recommended as a replacement for the
Cornelian cherry dogwood (Cornus mas), and
radiant crabapple [Mains x purpurea 'Radiant')
was included to possibly replace the large
quantity of flowering dogwood. Juniper, yew,
or barberry were recommended to replace the
mugo pine (Pinus mugo) if it was not available.
All other plants from the previous list met with
approval at this time. Ultimately, as a result of
these changes, the plant list in September 1971
consisted of the following:
Canopy Trees:
Rosehill ash, hackberry, littleleaf linden,
basswood, Japanese pagoda tree (Sophora
japonica), baldcypress (Taxodium distichum),
Japanese black pine, river birch (Betula nigra),
saucer magnolia (Magnolia x soulangiana), and
star magnolia (Magnolia stellata).
Flowering Trees:
Redbud, flowering dogwood, Washington
hawthorn (Crataegus phaenopy rum), gold-
enraintree, Bradford pear, Arnold crabapple
(Malus arnoldiana), Sargent crabapple (Malus
sargentii), and radiant crabapple (Malus
hybrida).
Shrubs and Groundcover:
Dwarf flowering quince (Chaenomeles
sp.), mugo pine, Bulgarian ivy (Hedera
Helix 'Bulgaria'), and fragrant sumac (Rhus
aromatica) '. 131
In August 1971, construction drawings for
"Planting Phase I" were completed.' 32 The
limits of construction for this phase (see
Figures 2.36 and 2.37) were the slopes on the
west side of the railroad tunnel cuts and a
portion of the north-south axis. The only
plants listed on this drawing therefore were the
Japanese black pine and redbud proposed for
the railroad cut slopes, and the Rosehill ash to
line the sidewalks.
By the time construction drawings for
subsequent planting phases were completed
(by HB&A, drawing No. 366/41027), several
new tree species were introduced to the list.
Red maple (Acer rubrum), sugar maple (Acer
saccharum), thornless honeylocust (Gleditsia
triacanthos variety inermis 'Shademaster'), and
Kentucky coffeetree (Gymnocladus dioicus)
were added to the plant list as major trees.
River birch and hackberry were removed.
Although evidence on the final list is clear,
documentation regarding the reason for addi-
tions and deletions of plant material from the
previously revised NPS list (1971) during this
period was not found.' 33
In December 1978, the NPS DSC produced "as
constructed drawings" for the planting at the
Memorial, which depicted yet more changes
to the plant list. Prepared in compliance with
the previous two approved planting plans (No.
366/41019 and No. 366/41027), the drawings
depicted four new species and eliminated four
more. Added to the list of canopy trees were
red oak (Quercus rubra) and bur oak (Quercus
macrocarpa), which were previously deter-
mined to be difficult to transplant. Lalandi
firethorn (Pyracantha coccinea 'Lalandi'), and
wintercreeper (Euonymus fortunei 'Coloratus')
were added to the list of shrubs and ground-
covers. 134 Documentation of the rationale
behind the changes was not found.
A comparison of the original approved
plant list (Kiley's list) and the plant list "as
constructed" indicates that approximately half
of the original 21 plant species were retained
and 10 new species were introduced (see
Figure 2.38). The composition of the plantings
in relation to the walks, ponds, Gateway Arch,
and overlooks was reasonably retained.
Harland Bartholomew & Associates
The firm of HB&A was hired on January
12, 1973 to prepare construction documents
and specifications necessary to complete
the landscape development at the Memorial
according to the 1966 approved plan.' 35 The
construction drawings developed by the
2-50 / SITE PHYSICAL HISTORY
JEFFERSON NATIONAL EXPANSION MEMORIAL CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT
X **> ^-«
I
p
i I
"O EJ.P U
S « I 3
3 5 5
c* w y ^
•go _
a -s ^r
— ! tfl
O D.
# 8 If
oa £ eo O
fi
til
-o Q e
I so2
** c HI
ill
S£ fee.
WEB
S^
ft. _
o c e
M « SO
2 §
4> >*
'o,
s £
pa ra
„ a s £ g
tfif 8 "S'gP
H S a 2 ^ n
2^
E
2
o to rt
ecu
s, j ii. :> pa
^_* ^^ v ^^ —
o <u o
•3 !2 ■= 3
IE-
« « c 3
SIS *
o
5SSE-2 5
a si 2 » "8 u
ft. O" C i/l H H & U U O 2 S ftT
3 5
E S
Li "— £ cs C =i Vi
k. S S S ? » 6
IP
I e
o "a
I
u
II O
-a
*£ or
8^~
3 Ju II « 3
— E
■a o
C c W
JS 5 y 3 S S 0-3 fev E'g.E3 = -oS
u-i 00 bo tjj
Q.Sffli
2
E
1 «
S5
§
r.
i
lis
ipi
3
.—
0.
« j:
Vi
c s
1^)
ts
•5 »£ 5 g
u
CL.*0
c
V
■a
n
§ I
c
■0
•a
a
2
9 ■" « w c
O 3 3 n>
c
3
u
*3 rt
"0 "5
D9
y
^1
s
1
Cekis
Ginkg
Querc
Querc
Liriod
in
^3
ibTj c-r;
M
'C
» 3 S 3
y c 3 =
s § e e
u U U 0.
E
U
2
(4
a
s
>
p
ii 1
3 = a -= p
= u &H x 2
64
s
>e
10
b3
<
w
z
rf
S
c
C
S
c
c
U
ft
JEFFERSON NATIONAL EXPANSION MEMORIAL CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT
SITE PHYSICAL HISTORY / 2-51
National Park Service, as well as the approved
design development plan and grading plan,
were forwarded to the firm. The NPS design
and construction offices remained involved to
review and supervise until 1978, when the NPS
design team again took over and developed a
planting plan for the remainder of the site.
The firm was involved in the project for three
contracts over a period of six years. The first
of the three contracts required a number of
different types of services, divided into three
categories:
"Title I services are performed as part of the
initial planning and data gathering and will
include such management information aids as
the Government may direct. Title II services
involve preparation of working specifications,
drawings, construction contract documents,
and estimates of the cost of construction. Title
III services relate to supervision and inspection
of the actual construction work (which will be
performed by others) and to such other post
construction activities as the Government may
direct.'" 36
The services were to be in accordance with
the NPS designs including the 1966 approved
design development plan, and the construc-
tion drawings and specifications developed
by the design and construction office in San
Francisco. 137 Immediate projects included
design concepts, construction drawings,
specifications, and cost estimates for two
pedestrian overpasses. Also outlined was the
comprehensive design, construction drawings,
specifications, cost estimates and construction
supervision for completing the following: site
grading and sealing of ponds, irrigation system,
utility extensions, walk and area lighting,
pedestrian walkways, Monumental Entrance
(Grand Staircase), planting plan, reha-
bilitation of electrical components in the Old
Courthouse, and modification of the existing
storm drainage system. 138
Although by the time HB&A's contracts were
completed many drawings had been produced,
not all were approved and used for implemen-
tation. Rather than discuss all of the drawings
HB&A developed, this discussion will focus on
the most important drawings that were used
for construction purposes.
Three important sets of drawings were
developed under this contract. 139 The first, in
general, consisted of all site work including
grading, utility extensions, irrigation system,
and construction of ponds and retaining
walls. The second was the specification of
lighting standards, their location, and electrical
requirements. The third was the planting
plan that complemented the site work. (Note
that Phase I was already constructed at this
point and that these drawings focused on the
completion of the 1966 approved plan — all
but the north-south axis.) These drawings were
approved by the Manager of the DSC in April
1973 and by the Acting Regional Director in
November of the same year. Although imple-
mentation was not based on these drawings,
all other construction drawings developed
by both HB&A and the NPS Design and
Construction Office were in compliance with
these approved sets of drawings.
Although never approved or constructed, the
pedestrian overpasses and Luther Ely Smith
Square construction drawings were important
because they were a major portion of the first
contract with HB&A. 14 " At the time they were
developed, the engineering of segmented
post-tension, pre-cast concrete structures was
uncommon in this country (see Figure 2.39).
The second contract between the National
Park Service and HB&A required the
reformatting of the existing drawings (No.
366/41 019-site development, No. 366/
41027-planting plan) into six bidding pack-
ages. 141 In other words, the National Park
Service wanted to break the remaining work
into phases and complete only sections of
the property and work at a time. As with the
previous development at the Memorial, phases
of implementation were required due to the
financial opportunities and constraints of the
time. The following drawings, construction
specifications, and six engineer's estimates
were completed and mailed to the National
Park Service in October 1977:
• Site Development Plan - Phase II (North
Section), DWG. No. 366/41037, 36 sheets
2-52 / SITE PHYSICAL HISTORY
JEFFERSON NATIONAL EXPANSION MEMORIAL CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT
Planting Plan - Phase II (North Section),
DWG. No. 366/41038, 10 sheets;
• Site Development Plan - Phase III (South
Section), DWG. No. 366/41039, 38 sheets
Planting Plan - Phase III (South Section),
DWG. No. 366/41040, 10 sheets;
• Site Development - Phase IV (Levee
Section), DWG. No. 366/41041, 11 sheets
Planting Plan - Phase IV (Levee Section),
DWG. No. 366/41042, 10 sheets; and
• Construction Specifications - Site
Development - Phases II, III, IV
Construction Specifications - Planting -
Phases II, III, IV"* 2
The landscape was completed according to
these drawings, but not in the phase order
suggested by HB&A. 143 One major change and
several minor changes to the original plan
were suggested by HB&A and approved by the
National Park Service. The most important
was the change to the Monumental Entrance,
or grand staircase.
As originally designed by Eero Saarinen, the
Monumental Entrance or grand staircase
was designed to be a bold connection of the
Gateway Arch and the Old Courthouse to the
historic riverfront. The steps were originally
designed with an unusual tread/riser relation-
ship (see Figure 2.20). Each tread was to
increase in size from the top of the staircase to
the bottom (closest to the river) with a constant
six-inch riser (the same design was constructed
at each of the overlooks). The designers at
HB&A were opposed to this design. They used
the overlook steps as examples when arguing
that this unusual tread/riser relationship,
although unique and creative from a design
standpoint, was uncomfortable and potentially
dangerous for the large numbers of visitors that
would use the steps daily.' 44
Although the overall form of the grand
staircase (500 feet wide at the top and 291 feet
wide at the bottom, with curved sides) and its
location was retained as Saarinen designed it,
the recommendations made by HB&A were
considered and the details were changed,
resulting in the specification of a typical tread/
riser relationship. The construction documents
were developed so that the Monumental
Entrance would be constructed in two phases.
The first phase consisted of construction
of the north and south sections, leaving the
middle section out for later development. The
second phase of construction would connect
the two previously constructed sections, thus
completing the Monumental Entrance (see
Figure 2.40).
Figure 2.39. Harland Bartholomew & Associates, sketch of proposed pedestrian overpasses, 1975. (JNEM Ar-
chives, Record Unit 120, Drawing 366/41025)
JEFFERSON NATIONAL EXPANSION MEMORIAL CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT
SITE PHYSICAL HISTORY / 2-53
Summary of Design Development
The development of Jefferson National
Expansion Memorial was a long and difficult
task. The original winning design concept
evolved from a forested site from which the
Gateway Arch would soar to magnificent
heights to an urban park with tree-lined
pedestrian walkways and an overall curvilinear
vocabulary reflecting the simple curves of
the Gateway Arch. After the design concept
was finalized and accepted, the National
Park Service and other designers developed
construction documents and specifications
geared toward implementing the concept as
envisioned by the original designers. Although
some compromises and changes were made
in the planning stages, the goal remained
unchanged. All design efforts were directed
toward realizing the Saarinen/Kiley concept
development plan.
Physical History of the Landscape
Introduction
The history of the construction of the
Memorial landscape is long and compli-
cated. Many contracts and contractors were
employed to complete different phases of the
work. A summary chart of the contractors and
their responsibilities can be found in Appendix
A. The physical construction of the Memorial
landscape began in 1951 with the temporary
beautification of the block immediately east of
the Old Courthouse (later to be called Luther
Ely Smith Square) and ended with the last
major construction effort in 2003, the comple-
tion of the grand staircase.' 43 The following
narrative documents the physical construction
of the site from 1951 through 1986. Period plans
corresponding with each major development
period graphically document the physical
change over time and can be found at the end
of this chapter.
1951: Luther Ely Smith Square
The block bounded by Fourth, Chestnut,
Third, and Market Streets, just east of the
Old Courthouse, was developed in 1951 as a
result of an agreement between the United
States of America and the City of St. Louis.' 46
The "Riverfront Garden" as it was called, was
designed by landscape architects who worked
for the city's parks department.' 47 The plans
called for a sunken garden with flower beds in
the middle and two rows of trees on each side:
one row of shade trees along Chestnut and
Market Streets, and one row of flowering trees
on either side of the sunken garden (see Figure
2.41). Concrete steps were to lead down to the
garden from Fourth Street and it was to meet
the grade at Third Street.
Portions of the Memorial grounds south of
the Old Cathedral were also planned to be
temporarily developed as ball fields (softball,
baseball, and football) and a small playground.
This work was never completed due to a lack
of funding.' 48
1959-1968 - Railroad Relocation, Scenic
Overlooks, and Gateway Arch
Construction of the Memorial began in 1959
with the dismantling of the Old Rock House
which stood in the way of the proposed
\ 1 \ ^^--^AWHARF . \ STREET \ ^--T
Figure 2.40. Phased development of grand staircase as proposed by HB&A. (Detail from Drawing No.
366/41025, JNEM Archives, Record Unit 120)
2-54 / SITE PHYSICAL HISTORY
JEFFERSON NATIONAL EXPANSION MEMORIAL CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT
railroad relocation and grand staircase. Local
citizens were dismayed to hear of its destruc-
tion since it had been restored just eighteen
years earlier. In response to the protests, the
National Park Service carefully numbered and
stored some of the stones from the building
with the intent to reconstruct it at a yet to be
determined location on the site.' 49 A location
for the building was considered for a short time
but eventually the idea to reconstruct it was
eliminated from the development concept. 15 "
At this time the Denchar Warehouse was also
razed. This building had been used to store the
ironwork and architectural fragments that had
been salvaged from the demolition of other
riverfront buildings. These were planned to
be a principal resource for the site's proposed
Museum of American Architecture, but in 1957,
due to financial realities, this museum was
dropped from Saarinen's development plan. 151
The National Park Service, in an effort to
coordinate construction, divided the work into
four proposed phases. Phase I included the
track relocation, retaining walls, and cross-
over bridges. Phase II included research and
planning for the museum, redevelopment of
the levee, and excavations for the Gateway
Arch foundations and visitor center/museum.
The third phase would include the Gateway
Arch construction, structural portions of
the visitor center and Museum of Western
Expansion, construction and installation of
Museum of Western Expansion exhibits, and
a portion of the final landscaping. Phase IV
would be the final landscaping. Although the
© 6 ©® €)© ©©€©©&©©©©!
jJ<9QQ<3ai0ffl«9a«<S0(8
« q & & 9 <s & *•!§ <s S «s a * »
©©©©©©©ft©©©©©©©©
proposed completion date of 1964 was not
met, this schedule for development was basi-
cally followed as planned, with a few changes
along the way.
Railroad Relocation
Once the Old Rock House was removed,
efforts to relocate the two elevated railroad
tracks approximately 105 feet to the west in
a series of open cut walls and tunnels could
begin. The project was completed under
three separate contracts, each awarded to
MacDonald Construction Company. The first
was the construction of the 960-foot tunnel
on the east side of the site. The contract was
awarded in June 1959, and by August the tunnel
excavation had started and concrete walls were
being poured.
By January, i960, contracting for the retaining
walls (open cut walls) began (Figure 2.42).
Three open cuts were constructed: a 731-foot
cut on the north, and two more measuring 840
feet and 210 feet on the south. The retaining
walls gradually increased in height from the
middle toward the ends of each cut and were
gently curved to reflect the curvature of the
Gateway Arch. The cuts ranged from approxi-
mately 35 feet to 48 feet wide.
North and South Overlooks
The third construction contract was awarded
on February 9, 1961. MacDonald Construction
Company again submitted the low bid of
$3,796,015 for the excavation of the Gateway
Arch foundations and visitor center/Museum
of Western Expansion, and the levee redevel-
opment. This contract also included construc-
tion of the north and south overlooks (see
Figure 2.43).
The overlooks served two important func-
tions; they bridged the railroad tracks from the
open cuts to the perimeter of the Memorial,
and they provided a viewing platform for
watching the river traffic, an important aspect
of the Saarinen concept. The overlooks were
located 4,000 feet apart at the north and
Figure 2.41. Architect's drawing of Riverfront Garden
(St. Louis Post Dispatch, March 30, 1951. (Copy on file
in the JNEM Archives, Record Unit 119, Box 15)
JEFFERSON NATIONAL EXPANSION MEMORIAL CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT
SITE PHYSICAL HISTORY / 2-55
south ends of the Memorial. A 56-foot by
60-foot building was part of each; these were
intended as museums to interpret railroad and
river transportation. The building roofs were
designed as viewing platforms with concrete
parapet walls and metal railings. The east walls
of the overlooks ranged from just a few feet
to 54 feet high and were an extension of the
floodwall system. The walls were curved verti-
cally as well as horizontally to reflect the curve
of the Gateway Arch. The steps leading from
the overlooks down to Wharf Street were not
a typical design. Rather than have a standard,
unchanging tread/riser relationship, Saarinen
designed steps with an unchanging riser of
eight inches and treads which increased in
length from the top of the staircase to the
bottom. This design created a sweeping
effect and echoed the catenary line of the
Gateway Arch. Construction of the overlooks
completed the railroad relocation project and
marked the beginning of the construction of
the Gateway Arch.
The Gateway Arch
On January 22, 1962, bid opening took place
in the Old Courthouse for construction of
the Gateway Arch and visitor center. Of the
four bids received, MacDonald Construction
Company was the low bidder and was
subsequently awarded the contract on March
14, 1962. 152 Pouring the first concrete for the
Gateway Arch foundations took place on June
27, 1962. The first section was placed on the
south foundation on February 12, 1963 and
filled with concrete on April 9.
When the Gateway Arch reached the 300-foot
level, consultants to PDM questioned the
integrity of the arch design. Construction
ceased while the National Park Service
brought in the Bureau of Public Roads and the
Bureau of Reclamation to do seismographic
measurements of the Gateway Arch and study
its sway, complete a structure design study,
and conduct wind tunnel tests. Ultimately
Figure 2.42. Construction of railroad open cut walls and tunnel, i960. (Photo by Arteaga; JNEM Archives,
Visual Image No. 106-3732)
2-56 / SITE PHYSICAL HISTORY
JEFFERSON NATIONAL EXPANSION MEMORIAL CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT
the studies indicated that the Gateway Arch
would be structurally sound and construction
continued. 153 As a result of the wind tunnel
tests, specific heights were proposed along
the north-south axis of the Gateway Arch to
deflect wind and protect the structure.' 54 The
final section was put in place on October 28,
1965 (see Figure 2.44).
Old Cathedral Parking Lot
Several other minor additions to the site took
place during this initial nine-year construction
period. In i960, NPS Director Conrad Wirth
approved the construction of a small parking
lot south of the Old Cathedral. The lot, paved
with asphalt, measured 310 feet by 105 feet
and held approximately 87 vehicles. A small
plaza was also constructed between the Old
Cathedral and the parking lot. A 57-foot-long
free-standing stone wall, three trees, and two
concrete benches were all part of the plaza.
In 1969, the Pastor of the Old Cathedral
requested permission, at the expense of
the Archdiocese of St. Louis, to enlarge the
parking lot because the lot could not accom-
modate the number of parishioners during
special masses. 155 The request proposed that
the lot be almost doubled from 87 cars to 167
cars. The request was denied by the National
Park Service for several reasons. First, the
National Park Service felt that ample parking
could be found in nearby garages or at the
surface lot on the north end of the Memorial
grounds. Second, the National Park Service felt
that the extension would "adversely affect the
architectural integrity of the whole memo-
rial.'" 56
Summary
By 1968 some of the major structural features
of the site were constructed and the plan
began to take shape. The entire north end of
the site was used for parking. The south end
Figure 2.43. Construction of north overlook, 1961. (Photo by Arteaga; JNEM Archives, Visual Image No. 106-
3792)
JEFFERSON NATIONAL EXPANSION MEMORIAL CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT
SITE PHYSICAL HISTORY / 2-57
Figure 2.44. The final section of Gateway Arch is put in place, October 28, 1965. (Photo by Arteaga; JNEM
Archives, reference photograph collection)
2-58 / SITE PHYSICAL HISTORY
JEFFERSON NATIONAL EXPANSION MEMORIAL CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT
of the park was basically a construction lot.
Construction roads scarred the landscape from
Poplar Street to the Gateway Arch. Temporary
pedestrian walks were constructed from
Memorial Drive to the Gateway Arch legs (see
Figure 2.48). The local community was anxious
to see the landscape completed.
1969-1973 - Site Development Phase I and
Planting Phase I
Construction projects completed before 1969
(the railroad relocation and the Gateway
Arch) consumed more funds than had been
anticipated, and so future projects were
prioritized. It was the viewpoint of the
National Park Service that the Museum of
Westward Expansion was the next priority.
After all, the story of westward expansion
which the Gateway Arch symbolized was yet
to be told. St. Louisans, however, felt differ-
ently. This wonderful contemporary icon that
gave the city a new identity, and cost millions
of dollars, stood amidst a wasteland of weeds
and construction roads. The people of St.
Louis felt that landscaping should be given
priority before the visitor center and therefore
the construction of one of the theaters in the
visitor center was deferred to allow for the
planting of trees.' 57
Landscape development based on the
construction documents prepared by the
NPS design team began in 1970. As previ-
ously stated, work originally planned to be
completed as one contract was divided into
three separate contracts and spread over a
three year period. Phase I of the site develop-
ment was completed by two separate contracts
(and contractors) in 1970-1972 and Planting
Phase I was completed in 1972-1973. 158
The first phase of landscaping work was
site development which included grading,
drainage, temporary walks, and planting along
the north-south axis of the Gateway Arch
(see Figures 2.36 and 2.37). Bids were opened
March 19, 1970 and all estimates were devel-
oped based on NPS construction drawings.' 59
All bids received exceeded the government
estimate and were therefore discarded.
The plans and specifications were revised,
limiting the scope of work and eliminating the
planting of trees.' 60 Bids were opened a second
time three months later, on June 11, 1970. Four
bids were received for the grading, drainage,
waterproofing, and seeding of the visitor
center roof. Kozeny-Wagner, Inc. submitted
the low bid and was awarded the construction
contract for site development Phase I on June
19, 1970. 161 Gene Mott and Jim Holland of the
NPS DSC were assigned as project inspec-
tors.' 62
The project supervisor for Kozeny-Wagner
brought his workmen to the Old Courthouse
to look at the model of the Gateway Arch "...
so they'd know what Eero Saarinen had in
mind for the landscaping." 163 Their work began
on the south end of the site on July 27 and
progressed to the north end by late August.
The firm was responsible for installing a
portion of the underground drainage system,
scraping the soil off the visitor center roof to
waterproof it, grading the visitor center roof
and reseeding it, and basic grading to establish
the sub-grade of the approved plan.
The initial earthwork produced a dramatic
change in the appearance of the landscape.
Before Kozeny-Wagner began, the site was
predominantly flat. By September 1970,
according to one observer, there appeared
to be a ski jump at either end of the site.' 64
The onlooker was referring to high points
on the north and south axis of the Gateway
Arch where the sidewalks would ultimately
converge. These high points were designed
as a result of wind tunnel studies that were
conducted using a model of the Gateway
Arch.' 65 In combination with the trees lining
the walks, the high points would help deflect
potentially detrimental north-south winds,
thereby protecting the Gateway Arch.
Many other tasks were being completed at the
same time. Under the terms of the contract,
Kozeny-Wagner was responsible for digging
147,000 cubic yards of unclassified excavation.
They began by scraping the rubble off the
top, contaminated with brick bats, concrete,
and other unwanted material from the 1930s
building demolition and the construction
of the Third Street Expressway. This was
stockpiled, cleaner soil was excavated, and the
rubble was graded out. Clean soil was added
to build up the high points of the landscape.
JEFFERSON NATIONAL EXPANSION MEMORIAL CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT
SITE PHYSICAL HISTORY / 2-59
The ponds and surrounding ground were also
sculpted out at this time. 166
By September 1971, the first portion of Phase I
of the site development was completed. In the
meantime, in March of the same year, Kozeny-
Wagner was awarded another contract for an
addition to the visitor center lobby, construc-
tion of a theater, and the installation of
air-conditioning and other mechanical work. 167
The second portion of Phase I of the site
development began in August 1971. It was
divided into two contracts and four sched-
ules. Schedules I and II were construction
of portions of the sidewalk system, paving
of service roads, construction of 280 tree
wells, addition of topsoil, and installation
of 14 concrete benches; Schedules III and
IV included the installation portions of the
sprinkler system. Millstone Associates, Inc.
was awarded both contracts. 168
Installation of the sidewalks began on the
south side of the Gateway Arch. The exposed
aggregate walkways were poured from the
overlooks on the east side to the Gateway
Arch legs, and from the rest areas on the
west side to the Gateway Arch legs (on both
the north and south ends of the site). The
rest areas were not constructed at this time.
These newly constructed walks met the older
temporary bituminous walks which led to the
Old Courthouse. A concrete base for the visitor
information kiosk and a pedestrian walk along
the south side of the visitor parking were also
constructed (see Figure 2.49). The contractor
was responsible for importing topsoil and
grading it accordingly.
Implementation of Schedules III and IV, the
installation of part of the irrigation system,
as well as installation of the storm drainage
system, repair of the sump pumps, and elec-
trical distribution was completed by June 1972.
Planting Phase I
Bids for Phase I of the planting plan were
opened October 27, 1971. There were two
options listed on the bid form. The second
option called for trees of smaller size than the
first one, another indication of the project's
financial constraints. On November 9, 1971,
Suburban Tree Service, Inc. was awarded the
contract for the ground preparation, seeding,
and planting of 573 trees under option two (the
smaller trees were planted). 169
The plans and specifications, preliminary
surveys, and construction layout of Phase
I Planting were all completed by John
Ronscavage of the Design Office of the San
Francisco Service Center. 17 " The first work,
grading the north and south railroad cut
slopes, began on December 1, 1971. The first
trees planted along the slopes were redbuds on
December 17. 171 By May 22, 1972, the grading,
soil preparation, and planting of 120 redbuds
and 80 black pines along the railroad cuts was
completed.
Beginning in January 1972, topsoil was hauled
in from a borrow pit at Lambert Field. 17 "
The spreading of topsoil and the planting of
Rosehill ash trees began at the north end of
the site and was completed at the south in July
1972. Two hundred and eighty Rosehill ash,
two-inch to two and one-half-inch caliper,
were planted along the newly constructed
walks. Ninety-three of the same species and
size were planted outside the walks. Suburban
Tree Service completed Phase I with the paving
of the tree wells. The borrow pit at Lambert
Field was reshaped and seeded to the airport
engineer's satisfaction, resulting in completion
of the contract on September 21, 1972 (see
Figure 2.45).
There were several problems encountered
during the completion of Phase I planting.
First, there was some difficulty finding enough
Rosehill ash and black pine. Ronscavage and
Holland made several trips to various nurseries
to tag adequate trees.' 73 Princeton Nurseries
in New Jersey and Rosehill Nursery in Kansas
City were the suppliers. Of the 280 Rosehill ash
trees planted, 82 died and were replaced by the
contractor. A study of the dead material indi-
cated that there was insufficient drainage (most
of the dead trees were on the north end of the
site). This prompted the use of underdrains in
the tree pits in the next phase of landscaping.
Some of the plant material also had to be held
during very hot, dry days until the sidewalk
construction was completed, adding undue
stress to the young trees. 174
2-60 / SITE PHYSICAL HISTORY
JEFFERSON NATIONAL EXPANSION MEMORIAL CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT
The first planting of grass only had a 40
percent success rate. This was determined to
be a result of poor timing due to delays in other
construction contracts. Time extensions to the
contract were granted to allow for reseeding.
There was one change order that resulted in a
time extension also. The added work included
restoring the north and west slopes adjacent to
the parking area. All replacement materials and
construction of this contract were completed
and a final inspection was made on January 22,
1974.
1974-1977 — Museum of Westward
Expansion, Grand Staircase, and other
Miscellaneous Features
This period in the construction history is
predominantly devoted to the construction
and development of the Museum of Westward
Expansion. Funding for museum construction
was provided in 1974, coming from several
sources, including federal appropriations from
Congress. Construction began in 1974 and the
museum was opened on August 10, 1976.
Walk and Area Lighting
The contract for the installation of utilities
for the walk and area lighting was begun
on February 18, 1974 and was completed on
August 3, 1974. The plans and specifications,
preliminary surveys, and construction layout
were all completed by R. Johanningsmeier
of the Design Office of the DSC. 175 Harding
Electric Company was the contractor and Ted
Rennison was the Project Supervisor. The
work included the installation of transformers,
control panels, and circuits in the Museum
of Western Expansion area and supplying
underground conduit for telephone and
electric circuits for the area lighting and power
receptacles on the grounds. The lights were
12-foot-high brown posts with a 21-inch globe
at the top (see Figure 2.46). The lighting was
typical for pedestrian spaces.
Temporary Maintenance Building
In June 1974, a contract was let to construct a
temporary maintenance building on the south
Figure 2.45. Aerial view of Memorial grounds after Phase I of landscape construction, 1975. (Photo by Arteaga;
JNEM Archives, reference photograph collection)
JEFFERSON NATIONAL EXPANSION MEMORIAL CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT
SITE PHYSICAL HISTORY / 2-61
end of the site. Until this time, maintenance
vehicles and equipment were stored in the
visitor center shell. Hankins Construction
Company was awarded the contract which
included site grading, installation of utilities,
construction of foundations, and erection of
a 32-foot by 72-foot prefabricated steel panel
building.' 76 A fenced yard measuring 50 feet
by 72 feet was also completed at this time
and was expected to meet the needs of the
maintenance division for the next five years.
Plans and specifications for the building and
yard were developed by the Assistant Chief
of Park Maintenance, Roy Scown, who was
also responsible for the preliminary surveys
and construction layout. Soon after construc-
tion, compacted construction roads leading
from the building to the north end of the park
emerged (see Figure 2.50).
Overlook Paving
Around the time of the completion of the walk
and area lighting, Sahrmann Construction
Company was commissioned to complete
the paving of the north and south overlooks.
Up until this time, 18-foot-wide pedestrian
walks extended to the overlook steps, but the
overlooks themselves were covered in grass.
The contract began on August 12, 1974 and was
completed on November 26, 1974. The work
included demolition, excavation, and construc-
tion of underdrains, installation of base course
and exposed aggregate paving, concrete
light bases and manholes, and miscellaneous
seeding.' 77
Monumental Entrance (Grand Staircase)
Construction of the Monumental Entrance
began on August 5, 1975 by contractor Kozeny-
Wagner and was substantially completed by
June 10, 1976 (see Figures 2.45 and 2.50). 178 Two
phases of plans and specifications and prelimi-
nary surveys were completed by HB&A. The
construction layout was made by Kozeny-
Wagner. The work included the construction
of two unconnected sections of steps and
1,500 square yards of new walks, installation of
electrical service for light fixtures and a snow-
melting mat for the north stairs, installation of
a drainage system, and grading and seeding.
Several change orders were requested and
approved for various reasons. The most note-
worthy was the extension of the snow-melting
mat to the sidewalk at the base of the north
stairs, replacement of a section of exposed
aggregate concrete at the south overlook, and
sodding the section between the stairs rather
than seeding. Although these were changes to
the original contract, the plans and specifica-
tions for the first phase of the Monumental
Entrance were closely followed. Phase II of
the development of the Monumental Entrance
(the center section) was not constructed until
2003 due to financial constraints.
12'
*x
Figure 2.46. Construction detail of walk lighting,
redrawn by Gargar Chan, 1996. (JNEM Archives,
Record Unit 120, Drawer 15, Folder 4)
2-62 / SITE PHYSICAL HISTORY
JEFFERSON NATIONAL EXPANSION MEMORIAL CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT
As already noted, the plans and specifications
developed by HB&A incorporated a signifi-
cant change from the original Saarinen/Kiley
plan. The stairs were to be constructed with a
tread/riser relationship similar to those of the
overlook stairs. HB&A argued the point with
the National Park Service based on the issues
of visitor safety. The National Park Service
agreed and the change was made. HB&A also
studied the design in terms of the number of
landings. Saarinen had designed the stairs with
no landings. The final design included two
landings (see Figure 2.40).
Only two years after construction, the grand
staircase began crumbling despite the fact
that Kozeny- Wagner followed strict specifica-
tions. After a year of debate as to why the
concrete failed, Schuster Engineering, Inc. was
contracted to make repairs. The repairs were
completed during the summer of 1980. 179
1978-1986 - Site Development Phases II-IV
The completion of a major portion of the
landscape development occurred between 1978
and 1981 (see Figure 2.51). HB&A produced
construction documents and specifications
for the development of the west half of the
site. 178 Schuster Engineering was awarded the
contract to complete the site development
including the construction of two ponds,
extension of the walks, extension of the irriga-
tion system, extension of the electrical systems,
extension of the walk lighting, and installa-
tion of cast-iron tree grates. The temporary
maintenance building was also relocated at
this time. Due to lack of funds, construction of
the permanent facility was delayed until a later
date and the temporary facility was relocated
to the area where the permanent facility would
eventually be built.
Construction began again in 1978 with the
grading of the west side of the Memorial site.
A large portion of the temporary parking
lot had to be demolished to make way for
the extension of the northwest sidewalk
leading to Washington Avenue and Memorial
Drive. More grading took place to establish
appropriate heights so that construction of
the ponds and walkways could begin. The
work progressed beginning with the center
section, then the north, and finally the south.
Along with the grading work, construction of
retaining walls at both the north and south
service entrances was required.
Several changes occurred during this portion
of site development. Grade changes were made
along Memorial Drive as a result of an error in
the cut/fill calculations. Excess fill material was
deposited along Memorial Drive south of the
Old Cathedral. 181 This mounded area became
five feet higher than originally planned.
Site furnishings such as benches and drinking
fountains were detailed by HB&A based on
drawings prepared earlier by the National Park
Service.' 82 The cobblestone paving around the
Rosehill ash trees was removed and replaced
with cast iron tree grates. The cobblestones
were settling and caused an uneven, hazardous
surface. Superintendent Robert Chandler
realized that the full width of the sidewalks was
not being utilized and decided to replace the
cobblestones with cast-iron tree grates. 183
While Schuster Engineering began the site
development on the west side of the site,
Shelton and Sons Landscaping was awarded a
planting contract to begin working on the east
side of the railroad tunnels. The plant mate-
rial installed on the east side of the railroad
tunnels included beds along the tunnels of low
growing shrubs such as fragrant sumac, mugo
pine, and pyracantha. Eastern redbud, flow-
ering dogwood, and black pine were planted
in groups along the tunnels. Baldcypress were
planted in groups closer to the sidewalk along
Wharf Street where existing baldcypress lined
the west side of the street spaced 75 to 80
feet apart. Large beds of wintercreeper were
planted along the west sides of the north and
south overlook steps.
After Schuster Engineering completed the
site development work, Shelton and Sons
Landscaping began planting on the west half
of the Memorial grounds. They planted the
remaining Rosehill ash in and along the newly
paved pedestrian walks. Shelton and Sons
JEFFERSON NATIONAL EXPANSION MEMORIAL CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT
SITE PHYSICAL HISTORY / 2-63
Landscaping was required to remove the
tree grates installed by Schuster Engineering
only months before in order to plant the
trees. Seeding of the lawns took place before
the planting of the trees around the ponds,
in order to stay on or close to the planting
schedule. Schuster Engineering was delayed in
completing their contract and this in turn held
up the planting. Once the grass was planted,
Shelton didn't want to drive across it and so
they brought the trees to their planting holes
by helicopter.' 84
To complete the planting plan, groundcover
was planted around the service areas, main-
tenance building, and west of the railroad
tunnels. Large beds of Bulgarian ivy were
planted on the steep slopes west of the railroad
tunnels. Wintercreeper was planted along
the slopes surrounding the service entrances
and around the maintenance facility. All of
these areas had excessive slopes that would be
difficult to maintain if they were seeded.
Gateway Arch Parking Garage
As early as 1958, architect Eero Saarinen
conducted feasibility studies for a parking
garage on the north end of the Memorial
grounds. Similar studies and several agree-
ments between the National Park Service and
the city of St. Louis were conducted between
1958 and 1978. The obstacle was a lack of
construction funds. In 1983, as a result of a
three-way partnership between the National
Park Service, the City of St. Louis, and the
Bi-State Development Agency, an agreement
was forged to expedite the construction of the
parking garage.' 85
Fred Weber, Inc. of St. Louis was awarded the
contract for his low bid of $6,262,000 to build
the garage based on a design and specifica-
tions developed by WVP Corporation.' 86
The agreement between the city and Bi-State
Development Agency authorized the reloca-
tion of Washington Avenue approximately 20
feet to the north.
Excavation began in 1984 while archeological
monitoring was conducted by Southern Illinois
University at Edwardsville (SIUE). By 1986
construction of the three-story, 1,208-car
parking garage was complete (see Figure 2.47).
Two levels were constructed below grade and
the top deck was at or close to grade with the
north and northwest walkway.
A planting plan was also developed by WVP
Corp. and implemented by Fred Weber, Inc.
The plant list included low-growing shrubs
in raised planters along Washington Avenue
and the foundation walls on the south side,
flowering trees, a few canopy trees, ground-
cover, and lawn areas. After recommendations
made by the National Park Service were
considered, the planting plan included the
following trees, shrubs, and groundcovers:
Rosehill ash, saucer magnolia, Sargent
crabapple, radiant crabapple, amur maple (acer
ginnala), hetz blue juniper (Juniperus chinensis
'Hetzii Glauca'), mentor barberry (Berberis x
mentorensis), anglojap yew (Taxus x media),
and wintercreeper. The plant palette basically
included species already existing in the park
with the exception of the shrubs.
The flowering trees were generally planted
in groups of two or more on the west, south,
and east sides of the garage in lawn areas.
Low-growing shrubs were located in raised
planters along Washington Avenue and along
either side of the garage entrance located off
the northwest pedestrian walk. Wintercreeper
was planted in the raised planters and other
planting beds along the foundation walls as
well. Amur maples were planted in concrete
planters on the top deck of the garage.
Figure 2.47. The Gateway Arch parking garage.
(Chan, NPS, 1996)
2-64 / SITE PHYSICAL HISTORY
JEFFERSON NATIONAL EXPANSION MEMORIAL CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT
Summary
By 1986, most of the major structures and
plantings based on the Saarinen/Kiley plan
were complete (see Figure 2.52). Exceptions
included the permanent maintenance facility,
the pedestrian overpasses, Luther Ely Smith
Square, and the center section of the grand
staircase. At this point in time, most efforts
were focused on maintaining the plan as
implemented thus far and not on completing
any major construction, particularly related to
the landscape.
JEFFERSON NATIONAL EXPANSION MEMORIAL CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT
SITE PHYSICAL HISTORY / 2-65
Endnotes
1. An abbreviated history is given here,
but for a comprehensive history see
Administrative History Jefferson National
Expansion Memorial by Sharon A. Brown,
1984; and Urban Innovation and Practical
Partnerships: An Administrative History of
Jefferson National Expansion Memorial,
ig8o-i()gi by Bob Moore, 1994.
2. "St. Louis Riverfront Proposals of the
Last 45 Years," St. Louis Globe-Democrat,
November 17, 1946 (copy on file in JNEM
Archives, Record Unit 119, Box 7).
3. "A Description and Explanation of
Plan 8009 For The Jefferson National
Expansion Memorial, St. Louis," October
1937. JNEM Archives, Record Unit 104,
Box 7, Folder 31.
4. Ibid.
5. Brown, Administrative History, 1.
Ms. Brown prints, in part, the Pro
Forma Decree of Incorporation of the
Jefferson National Expansion Memorial
Association, June 11, 1934. A copy of the
decree can also be found in the JNEM
Archives, Record Unit 104, Box 24, Folder
9-
6. A copy of Executive Order 7253 is on file
in the JNEM Archives, Record Unit 104,
Box 4, Folder 21.
7. This had the effect of reducing moneys
contributed from the municipal bond
issue, which required three dollars of
federal funds for each dollar of local
funds. See Brown, Administrative History,
8. Ultimately the National Park Service razed
all buildings in the Memorial area, except
the Old Cathedral, built in 1834, and
originally known as the Cathedral of St.
Louis of France. The Old Rock House was
"restored" in 1942 to resemble its original
1818 appearance. It was dismantled in 1959
for reassembly elsewhere on the Memorial
grounds in order to accommodate
construction of the railroad tunnels to the
east of the Gateway Arch, but it was later
determined that the building's integrity
rested in the original site and it was not
reassembled. The Old Courthouse was
saved and incorporated into the Memorial
scheme.
9. John Nagle in correspondence to Dr.
Herman Bumpus, March 3, 1938, as
quoted in Brown, Administrative History,
36. Dr. Bumpus served as Chairman of
the Advisory Board on National Parks,
Historic Sites, Buildings and Monuments,
established as part of the Historic Sites Act
of 1935-
10. A clay model prepared by the architectural
staff of the Memorial reflected early NPS
efforts toward directing site planning
for the Memorial. Referred to as "Plan
8009," the formally arranged design
included extensive open park land, and a
centrally placed obelisk on axis with the
Old Courthouse. The plan also retained
the Old Cathedral and the Old Rock
House, and provided for a museum of
American architecture and a museum of
the American fur trade.
11. The Denchar Warehouse, located at the
corner of Second and Clark streets, was
spared demolition for a time and used
as a storage space for the architectural
remnants saved during demolition for
future display in the proposed Museum
of American Architecture. When the
museum was eliminated from the develop-
ment plans the architectural remnants
were given to the Smithsonian and others
and the Denchar Warehouse was razed.
12. Brown, Administrative History, 79-88.
13. Correspondence from Luther Ely Smith
to the Jefferson National Expansion
Memorial Association, November 4,
1944, as quoted in Brown, Administrative
History, 81.
14. This is an accurate summary of the
programmatic requirements of the first
stage of the competition, from "Jefferson
Memorial Competition Winners,"
Architectural Record, v. 103 (April 1948).
2-66 / SITE PHYSICAL HISTORY
JEFFERSON NATIONAL EXPANSION MEMORIAL CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT
See the Jefferson National Expansion
Memorial Association, "Architectural
Competition for the National Expansion
Memorial, Program" (St. Louis: 1947),
pages 13-24, for the programmatic require-
ments of the competition. JNEM Archives,
Record Unit 104, Box 26, Folder 2.
15. Typed comments of the judges in refer-
ence to the five finalists were recorded
by the Jefferson National Expansion
Memorial Association, JNEM Archives,
Record Unit 104, Box 29, Folder 17.
16. Ibid., and also, Brown, "Jefferson National
Expansion Memorial: The 1947-1948
Competition," in Gateway Heritage,
Magazine of the Missouri Historical Society,
Winter, 1980, pp. 40-48.
17. Aline B. Saarinen, ed., Eero Saarinen on
His Work (New Haven: Yale University
Press, 1968), 18.
18. Ibid, 18. On this basis, Allan Temko
argues that the symbolism of the Arch
as "Gateway to the West" was a later
realization, and that it was derived from
the simple notion of a high and permanent
form rising from the river's levee. See
Allan Temko, Eero Saarinen (New York:
George Braziller, 1962), 18-19. Temko's
argument seems the correct one based on
a brief commentary written by Saarinen
for the St. Louis Post-Dispatch (March 7,
1948), JNEM Archives, Record Unit 119,
Box 10, Folder 61: "More and more, it
began to dawn on us that the arch was
really a gateway, and various friends
who stopped to look at what we were
doing immediately interpreted it as such.
Gradually, we named it the 'Gateway to
the West.'"
19. Aline B. Saarinen, ed., Eero Saarinen on
His Work, 18.
20. Ibid. The forest of trees was conceived
as the setting for the Arch, but a practical
purpose was assigned to the forest as well,
the forest as a park. From the Saarinen
commentary in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch
(March 7, 1948; JNEM Archives, Record
Unit 119, Box 10): "We got quite enthu-
siastic about covering as much of the
site with a dense forest, because we had
heard many people complain about the
heat in St. Louis in the summer. In fact,
we were so enthusiastic about this that
we wondered whether our chances in the
competition would not be greater if we
forgot about the arch and just emphasized
a great forest."
21. Mary Hughes, oral history interview with
Dan Kiley, June 8, 1991 (transcript on file
in JNEM Archives); Bob Moore, oral
history interview with Dan Kiley, July 22,
1993 (transcript on file in JNEM Archives).
22. Hughes, oral history interview with Dan
Kiley, June 8, 1991. Kiley reaffirms this in
his interview with Historian Bob Moore,
July 22, 1993: "I did all his work, unless the
client had a different idea."
23. Ibid.
24. Ibid. Kiley also discussed this episode in
the Moore interview, July 22, 1993, and in
an interview with Gregg Bleam and Gina
Bellavia, July 28, 1995 (transcripts on file
in JNEM Archives). The Moore interview
confirmed that Saarinen already had the
idea for the Arch when he arrived in New
Hampshire.
25. Hughes interview with Kiley, June 18,
1991. A similar comment is made in Gregg
Bleam's interview with Kiley, July 28, 1995.
26. In the Hughes interview, Kiley discussed
the atmosphere in the Saarinen office
while preparing for the first stage of
the competition. "And through it there
was lots of joking ... and I kept Eero's
office, you know, always having fun."
Also: "... everybody was so intense, and
I kept making funny cracks all the time
all through." Kiley discusses Saarinen's
competitive nature, especially in prepara-
tion for the competition, in the Moore
interview of July 22, 1993.
27. Dan Kiley, "Jefferson National Expansion
Memorial," in Landscape Design: Works
of Dan Kiley, Process Architecture, No. 33
(October 1982), 109.
JEFFERSON NATIONAL EXPANSION MEMORIAL CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT
SITE PHYSICAL HISTORY / 2-67
28. Aline B. Saarinen, ed., Eero Saarinen
on His Work, 6. Kevin Roche, a partner
in Saarinen's firm, offers the following
insight: "So in Eero's work right from the
start — the St. Louis Competition, where
Dan was a part of the winning team, and
Dan's landscape — Eero himself was very
interested in site planning and in site
design and in landscaping as an idea for
siting a building. It wasn't that he was an
avid landscaper in the sense of knowing
how or what tree should be used where,
but in a compositional sense ..." Kevin
Roche, oral history interview with Gregg
Bleam, June 30, 1992 (transcript on file in
JNEM Archives).
29. Ibid, 10.
30. Along this line of thought, Kevin Roche
states in his oral history interview with
Gregg Bleam, May 1, 1995 (transcript on
file in JNEM Archives): "He [Eero] had
very tight control over the whole thing,
but ... he would certainly listen to what
Dan had to say and so it was a collabora-
tion."
31. Jefferson National Expansion Memorial
Association, "Jefferson National
Expansion Memorial Competition,
Second Stage Addenda to the Program,"
2. JNEM Archives, Record Unit 104,
Box 29, Folder 19. The "Second Stage
Addenda" certainly seemed to favor
the Saarinen team proposal. From the
Addenda: "In general, the Site is to be
treated as a tree-shaded park, sloping
down to the river, with an open vista from
the Old Courthouse to the Levee. The
architectural Memorial may be placed
near its boundaries rather than towards
the center."
32. Letter from Dan Kiley to Bob Moore,
Historian, Jefferson National Expansion
Memorial, faxed June 26, 1998, Historian's
records, JNEM.
33. "Final Report of The Jury Of Award to
the Professional Adviser on the First and
Second Stages of the Jefferson National
Expansion Memorial Competition,"
JNEM Archives, Record Unit 104, Box 29,
Folder 16.
34. "Competition: Jefferson National
Expansion Memorial," in Progressive
Architecture (May 1948). The article
also describes how the team studied the
proposed contours of the site in a clay
model to create a free flow among the
various design elements.
35. Aline B. Louchheim, "For A Modern
Monument: An Audacious Design", New
York Times, February 29, 1948 (copy on file
in JNEM Archives, Record Unit 119, Box
10).
36. "Big 'Hairpin' Memorial Leaves St. Louis
Cold," Akron, Ohio Beacon Journal,
February 27, 1948 (copy on file in JNEM
Archives, Record Unit 119, Box 10).
37. Brown, "Jefferson National Expansion
Memorial: The 1947-1948 Competition"
in Gateway Heritage, discusses the
reaction to the competition winner,
including the Clarke controversy. See the
following sources for the response of the
architectural press: "Jefferson National
Expansion Memorial Competition
Winners," in The Architectural FORUM,
v. 88 (March 1948); "Jefferson Memorial
Competition Winners," in Architectural
Record (April 1948); and "Competition:
Jefferson National Expansion Memorial,"
in Progressive Architecture (May 1948).
Also, a brief discussion of the Clarke
controversy may be found in "St. Louis
Selects Modern Design," in Art News, v.47
(March 1948). This article points out that
the "Fascist" arch was never executed, and
was designed with a semi-circular form.
38. "Winning Arch Not Fascist Invention,
Says Award Jury," St. Louis Post-Dispatch,
March 14, 1948 (copy on file in JNEM
Archives, Record Unit 119, Box 10).
39. "Arch That Triumphed Attacked As Like
One Mussolini Approved," St. Louis Post-
Dispatch, February 26, 1948 (copy on file
in JNEM Archives, Record Unit 119, Box
10).
2-68 / SITE PHYSICAL HISTORY
JEFFERSON NATIONAL EXPANSION MEMORIAL CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT
40. Brown, "Jefferson National Expansion
Memorial: The 1947-1948 Competition,"
in Gateway Heritage. A letter written
from Smith to Saarinen, dated June 3,
1948 (on file in JNEM Archives). "It was
your design, your marvelous conception,
your brilliant forecast into the future, that
has made the realization of the dream
possible — a dream that you and the
wonderful genius at your command and
the able assistance of your associates are
going to achieve far beyond the remotest
possibility that we had dared visualize in
the beginning. Please accept again our
profound gratitude."
41. Brown, Administrative History, 94-114.
42. Ibid, 94.
43. Aline B. Saarinen, ed., Eero Saarinen on
His Work, 18. Although this quote is taken
from a January 1959 statement by Saarinen
on the memorial project, following the
extensive redesign in 1957, the quote
discusses the intent and design of the
original concept for the memorial's rela-
tion to the Old Courthouse and the river.
44. Dan Kiley to the Missouri Botanical
Garden, January 26, 1949 (copy on file in
JNEM Archives).
45. Eero Saarinen to Dan Kiley, August 6,
1956 (copy on file in JNEM Archives. The
accompanying memo is also dated August
6,1956).
46. Brown, Administrative History, 113-116.
47. John Peter, The Oral History of Modern
Architecture: Interviews with the Greatest
Architects of the Twentieth Century (New
York: Harry N. Abrams, Inc., 1994), 199.
From a 1958 interview with Saarinen: "I'm
terribly interested in Jefferson. That one
I would like to build more than anything
else. As you know, we have now come to
an agreement with the railroad, so that
if Congress says yes to the whole thing
we may go ahead. I would very much like
to build this stainless-steel arch and the
whole park." Saarinen's partner Kevin
Roche also stated in an interview with
Gregg Bleam, May 2, 1995 (transcript on
file in JNEM Archives): "He was anxious
to get it going — it was his most identifiable
[project] and the highlight of his career."
48. This is the Bernard Dickmann Memorial
Bridge, better known to residents of St.
Louis as the Poplar Street Bridge.
49. Saarinen's statement in its entirety may be
found in the following source: "Revised
Scheme, Revised Hope, For Saarinen's St.
Louis Arch," in Architectural Record, v.
122 (November 1957).
50. Aline B. Saarinen, ed., Eero Saarinen on
His Work, 18.
51. Peter, The Oral History of Modern
Architecture, 201. From the same source:
"The second thing was in the reworking
of the lines of the park, the roads, the
approaches to the thing to introduce the
same lines inherent in the arch itself, the
parabolic line. You see, all these things
relate."
52. Aline B. Saarinen, ed., Eero Saarinen on
His Work, 18.
53. Ibid, 21. The story about the office
employees testing the mock-up is taken
from Gregg Bleam's interview with Bob
Burley, an associate in the Saarinen office,
dated July 27, 1995 (transcript on file in
JNEM Archives): "Well, it goes back to
Eero's curvilinear feeling, both in plan and
section ... And, of course, there was the
misgivings about whether that was going
to be safe, which is why we did that full
scale mock-up. And ran everyone in the
office up and down the steps to see if they
would trip."
54. Peter, The Oral History of Modern
Architecture, 201.
55. Aline B. Saarinen, ed., Eero Saarinen on
His Work, 18.
56. Peter Papademetriou, as quoted in Andrea
O. Dean, "Eero Saarinen in Perspective,"
in AIA Journal (November 1981). Another
critic writes: "... he tried to overtake the
JEFFERSON NATIONAL EXPANSION MEMORIAL CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT
SITE PHYSICAL HISTORY / 2-69
fast moving train of technology ... and
impose upon it a system of checks and
balances similar in effect to the discipline
of classical and Renaissance architecture."
See Rupert Spade, "Introduction" to
Library of Contemporary Architects: Eero
Saarinen (New York: Simon and Schuster,
1971), 9.
57. Site plan sketches and drawings from
Saarinen's office, dating from throughout
1957, are quite telling in a number of
respects. First, they reveal Saarinen's
new emphasis on axial arrangement,
showing rectangular pools aligned on a
strong north-south axis with the Gateway
Arch, as well as an approximately bilat-
eral symmetry along the equally strong
east-west axis connecting the Gateway
Arch with the Old Courthouse. Second,
the drawings also indicate that Saarinen's
major reconfiguration of the plan in late
1957 cannot be solely attributed to the
railroad impasse, (although the railroad
problems did in fact require a new
scheme), but that the revised plan must
also be seen in light of a changing design
philosophy. Finally, these drawings seem
to show an intermediate step toward the
more strict reliance on curvilinear forms
of the later plans. In the earlier schemes
from 1957, rectangular forms interact with
circular paths, albeit the curving lines
appear considerably less graceful than
with later schemes. Also, from Peters,
The Oral History of Modern Architecture,
201: "Now, in the middle of the changes I
saw for the first time that really in rela-
tion to the Arch, the park, the roads, the
approaches to the park should all be done
within the same curved-form world, which
it wasn't before (emphasis added)."
58. This statement can also be read as an
effective description of the final planting
plan concept prepared by Kiley's office
and approved in 1966 by the National Park
Service. The intent here is to elicit the
underlying source of his design response.
Dan Kiley, "Jefferson National Expansion
Memorial" in Landscape Design: Works
of Dan Kiley, Process Architecture, No. 33,
(October 1982), 109.
59. Dan Kiley recalled: "Well, one of the big
things I was trying to tell Eero during the
designing phases, both in the first and
second phases, I was trying to interject a
more spatial mystery to the whole site ...
And that the landscape should relate more
spatially, visually /spatially, like a walk
in nature. It should be like a walk in the
woods, and you don't know what's next.
And it's leading you, always leading you.
And sort of — I call it spatial continuity.
And, Eero would say, well, draw it." From
Bob Moore, oral history interview with
Dan Kiley, July 22, 1993 (transcript on file
in JNEM Archives). Much in line with
the shift found in Saarinen's work from
the 1950s, Kiley's work beginning with
the Miller Garden (Columbus, Indiana)
collaboration with Saarinen in 1955,
revealed a new focus on the geometric
ordering of outdoor space. Inherent in
Kiley's approach was the idea of spatial
integration between building and land-
scape, and an understanding of the quality
of movement through these spaces.
Kiley's approach found favor with many
architects, and certainly contributed to the
success of the on -going and collaborative
nature of Saarinen and Kiley's relation-
ship. For a more in-depth discussion on
this development in both Saarinen's and
Kiley's work, see Gregg Bleam, "Modern
and Classical Themes in the Work of Dan
Kiley," in Modern Landscape Architecture:
A Critical Review, Marc Treib, ed.
(Cambridge, The MIT Press, 1993),
220-239.
60. Therefore, it may not be surprising that
Kiley's later reflections on the design of
the memorial project occasionally give
precedence to circulatory dynamics in
generating the curving form of the walks,
rather than any desire to mimic the form
of the Gateway Arch. In reference to the
curved walks he stated that "It wasn't
trying to make a symbol, a mirror of the
Arch at all. It was to do the circulation in
a lyrical, three dimensional quality." From
Bob Moore, oral history interview with
Dan Kiley, July 22, 1993. While one can
2-70 / SITE PHYSICAL HISTORY
JEFFERSON NATIONAL EXPANSION MEMORIAL CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT
only speculate at this point, the argument
here is for a fortuitous coupling of form
and function, with Saarinen's single-form
world conception taking precedence.
In an interview with Gregg Bleam on
May 1, 1995 (transcript on file in JNEM
Archives), Saarinen's partner Kevin
Roche confirmed Saarinen's lead in giving
curvilinear form to the path system, and in
Bleam's July 28, 1995, interview with Kiley
(transcript on file in JNEM Archives),
he succinctly states: "Eero had done the
shape of the walks. I just put the trees
along them." Of course, this statement
downplays the importance of the trees in
creating the "spatial continuity" that Kiley
was after.
61. It is difficult to determine what the
exact nature of Kiley's influence on the
memorial project was between the period
covering the end of the competition in
1948 and his work on the planting plan
beginning in 1959, a period in which
Kiley's role is less clearly documented.
The close friendship between Saarinen
and Kiley, and the fact that they collabo-
rated on many projects together, leads one
to suspect that many ideas were discussed
outside the confines of documented
correspondence. Kiley and Saarinen
worked together on some 20 projects, at
least ten of which were initiated in the
years 1955-1958, including Dulles Airport.
In his interview with Gregg Bleam, May
1, 1995, Kevin Roche confirmed that there
was a close friendship: "As to Eero's and
Dan's relationship it was always very, very
good."
62. Mary Hughes, oral history interview with
Dan Kiley, June 8, 1991 (transcript on file
in JNEM Archives).
63. Brown, Administrative History, 123.
64. NPS, Guidelines for the Master Plan,
Jefferson National Expansion Memorial
(St. Louis: March 10, 1959), 2. JNEM
Archives, Record Unit 104, Box 32, Folder
3. Guideline N0.2 in this document
containing a total of 22 numbered guide-
lines for the physical development of the
Memorial states, "development will follow
the general pattern of the revised Saarinen
Plan of 1958, with certain modifications
in detail reflected in the 1959 Master
Plan." Guideline No. 3 reads as follows:
"The dominant physical and inspirational
feature of the Memorial will be a parabolic
stainless steel arch of colossal dimen-
sions, with elevator facilities, which will
symbolize: (a) St. Louis as 'The Gateway
to the West', (b) The great frontier
traditions of the 'westward course of the
empire', and (c) The new technological
frontiers which challenge us today."
65. Ibid, 2. Guideline No. 4 states, "The
principal facility for enlightenment of
the visitor as to the historic theme of the
Memorial will be a structure, to be desig-
nated a Visitor Center, containing exhibits
telling the story of westward territorial
expansion. The structure shall be incor-
porated in the arch below the promenade
level."
66. Ibid, 3. Guideline No. 10 states, "In the
two planted areas, readily accessible to the
visitor center, there will be trail systems
with interpretive devices relating to the
Oregon and Santa Fe Trail."
67. Ibid, 4. Guideline No. 14 states, "It is
believed that the City of St. Louis has
ample facilities in civic parks and audi-
toriums for such events, and it is not
intended that the Memorial be regarded as
another City park."
68. Eero Saarinen to Dan Kiley, October 17,
1959 (copy on file in JNEM Archives).
69. Brown, Administrative History, 127.
70. This is shown in the Office of Eero
Saarinen and Associates "Conference
Notes" for meetings related to Jefferson
National Expansion Memorial. On file
in the JNEM Archives, is a copy of the
"Conference Notes" for meetings held
on the dates of March 21, 22, and 23,
i960; present were representatives from
the National Park Service, Saarinen's
Office, consulting engineers, and Kiley.
The Oregon and Santa Fe Trails plan was
discussed at these meetings. Also on file
JEFFERSON NATIONAL EXPANSION MEMORIAL CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT
SITE PHYSICAL HISTORY / 2-71
at the JNEM Archives, is a copy of the
Agenda for a meeting on September 2,
i960, involving Kiley and a discussion of
the landscaping. NPS Director Conrad
Wirth was also in attendance, and it is
suspected that this is the meeting in which
Wirth first raised his objections to Kiley's
planting plan. Wirth was not in attendance
at the March meetings.
71. Quotation from Edward Zimmer, Chief
of the NPS Eastern Office of Design and
Construction in correspondence with
Jefferson National Expansion Memorial
Superintendent George Hartzog, dated
August 1, i960, taken from Brown,
Administrative History, 126. Zimmer
favored delaying museum construction.
72. In later interviews, Kiley discussed the
trails and considered them to have had
a "Disney" like quality which he did not
favor. He attributes the idea to Saarinen
as part of his proposed village reproduc-
tions found in the winning competition
plan. Mary Hughes, oral history interview
with Dan Kiley, June 8, 1991 (transcript on
file in JNEM Archives); Bob Moore, oral
history interview with Dan Kiley, July 22,
1993 (transcript on file in JNEM Archives).
73. Whether or not Kiley favored a literal
trail scheme, his office obviously moved
ahead on the idea as evidenced in the
early i960 plan and section drawings
for the site. Terry Boyle, an associate in
the Kiley office, recalled: "I remember
simulating climbing up mountains and
they were supposed to represent ranges
of mountains all the way up. I mean it
was a miniature cross section of the U.S.
from ... St. Louis to where the Lewis
and Clark expedition ended. I thought
that's what the profile was supposed to
represent. That was my recollection."
Gregg Bleam and Gina Bellavia, interview
with Terry Boyle, July 27, 1995 (transcript
on file in JNEM Archives). The 40-foot
grade change may be determined from an
examination of contours depicted on the
early i960 plan, and the sections confirm
dramatic grade changes.
74. From the "Conference Notes" for the
March 21, 22, and 23, i960 meetings at the
Office of Eero Saarinen.
75. For instance, the proposed village
reproductions proposed in the competi-
tion drawings and later eliminated were
imagined as unique places that would
open up in the midst of the tall tree forest.
Mary Hughes, interview with Dan Kiley,
June 8, 1991. Transcript on file in JNEM
Archives.
76. The chosen species included a number
of shrubs as extensive underplanting
adjacent to the railroad cuts. It seems
that Wirth objected to the underplanting
as causing a policing problem. The
plans show the London planetree as the
monoculture species lining the walks.
77. This is shown in the Agenda for the
September 2, i960 meeting with the
National Park Service.
78. "Saarinen Calls for Boulevard on
Riverfront," St. Louis Post-Dispatch, April
19, i960. JNEM Archives, Record Unit 119,
Box 24.
79. Brown, Administrative History, 128.
80. This overview of the cutbacks on the
memorial project is taken from Brown,
Administrative History, 129-130.
81. Although it is not entirely clear what
Kiley's intended role was to be following
Wirth's decision-making on cutbacks
to the memorial project, there is an
assumption that he was to be removed as
collaborator on the project and its design,
even when faced with a major reevaluation
of the planting plan. This becomes more
evident in a letter from Eero Saarinen to
Dan Kiley, dated January 30, 1961 (copy
on file in JNEM Archives). Not only did
Saarinen outline the NPS objections to the
planting plan presented to the National
Park Service which had been presented
by Kiley in late i960, but he also wrote the
following: "After the meeting, he ruled
that the landscaping is to be done by the
N.P.S. staff ... I understand that part of the
2-72 / SITE PHYSICAL HISTORY
JEFFERSON NATIONAL EXPANSION MEMORIAL CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT
reason for him so ruling is that he felt that
the large staffs the N.P.S. has for planning
and architecture should be put to better
use. This makes me very unhappy and I
am planning at an appropriate time to try
to get this situation modified. I think that
it would be impossible to have him reverse
his position completely so that all design,
working drawings, specifications and
supervision would be done outside of the
Service. I think the only thing I can ask for
is the design — in other words, consulta-
tion with an outside consultant (that is,
you) and then the further detailed work be
actually carried out by the Department."
82. Bruce Detmers, interview with Gregg
Bleam, May 1, 1995 (transcript on file
in JNEM Archives). "I remember in a
meeting with Conrad Wirth discussing
the sequence of the project, Eero said the
Arch is the most important part of the
project, then the landscaping and then
the museum. Wirth responded, 'No, the
priorities are the Arch first, the museum
second, and the landscape third.' For him
the planting was not a high priority."
83. Correspondence from Eero Saarinen to
Dan Kiley, dated January 30, 1961, (copy
on file in JNEM Archives).
84. Correspondence from Terrance J. Boyle
to Dr. Philip C. Stowe, Entomology
Department, University of Missouri, dated
February 7, 1961 (copy on file in JNEM
Archives). Boyle, an associate in Kiley's
office, was interested in information about
plant pests).
85. Correspondence from Eero Saarinen to
Dan Kiley, dated January 30, 1961 (copy on
file in JNEM Archives). Wirth's criticisms
of the sculpted landforms is interesting
in that it seems his opposition was to the
inclusion of large berms to protect the site
from noise from the nearby expressway,
elements that were probably added at the
suggestion of NPS representatives at the
March i960 presentation of the Oregon
and Santa Fe Trail plan. However, it was
also at about this time that Saarinen
successfully pushed for a depressed
expressway, his success and growing
budget constraints probably affecting the
NPS attitude toward the berm. The criti-
cism of the underbrush was most likely
Wirth's response to the detailed planting
plans for the areas adjacent to the railroad
cuts.
86. Correspondence from Dan Kiley to Eero
Saarinen, dated February 3, 1961 (copy on
file in JNEM Archives). Kiley was refer-
ring to the original competition program
which stated: "Every associate whose
name appears as joint Author of a submis-
sion will be given full credit by name, in
all publicity, for his contribution and, if
associated with the Architect winning the
First Prize, will be recommended, along
with him, for ultimate employment by
the Department of Interior in executing
the design." However, the Department of
the Interior was never obligated to hire
the design team recommended through
the competition. Jefferson National
Expansion Memorial Association,
"Architectural Competition for the
National Expansion Memorial, Program"
(St. Louis: 1947). This document is on file
in JNEM Archives, Record Unit 104, Box
26, Folder 2.
87. The particulars of Saarinen's maneuver-
ings to retain Kiley for design develop-
ment of the landscape plan are unknown.
It appears that Saarinen successfully
pleaded Kiley's case without Kiley's
participation in the lobbying effort. Later
interviews with Kiley suggest that the
relationship between he and Wirth was
strained, and he attributes this to various
causes: 1) his failure to join the American
Society of Landscape Architects, an
organization of which Wirth had been
president; 2) a belief on Wirth's part that
the landscape architects employed by
the National Park Service were the best
in the country, and therefore, an outside
consultant such as Kiley was seen as
unnecessary; and 3) a disagreement over
design philosophy, Kiley referring to Wirth
as being from the Olmstedian tradition.
This is drawn from the Mary Hughes oral
history interview with Dan Kiley, June 8,
1991 (transcript on file in JNEM Archives)
and the Bob Moore oral history interview
JEFFERSON NATIONAL EXPANSION MEMORIAL CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT
SITE PHYSICAL HISTORY / 2-73
with Dan Kiley, July 22, 1993 (transcript on
file in JNEM Archives).
88. Bruce Detmers to Dan Kiley, January 9,
1962 (copy on file in JNEM Archives).
Bruce Detmers, an associate in the
Saarinen office, was writing to confirm
an upcoming meeting "to resolve the
landscaping and site problems."
89. Phillip Shipman to Bruce Detmers,
October 2, 1963 (copy on file in JNEM
Archives). Shipman, an associate in the
Kiley office, discussed the promotional
package and listed the drawings initially
prepared for that package.
90. Robert Hall, Chief EODC, to the Office of
Eero Saarinen and Associates, February
7, 1963 (copy on file in JNEM Archives).
The letter points out the NPS concerns
with the landscape plans and drawings
prepared to date.
91. The tulip poplar was important, if not
essential, to Kiley's plan: "... I wanted tulip
poplar, and I checked with horticulturists
all over the country and everybody said
it was a great tree ... with so many rows
of trees together, it's just like a forest.
In Virginia the tulip poplar is beautiful,
growing all over the forests there in
Virginia, and it's just a fantastic tree."
And, "I wanted something that soared up,
cathedral-like with big, high trunks ..."
Kiley also favored the tulip poplar because
it grew fast. Mary Hughes interview with
Dan Kiley, June 8, 1991. Kiley later noted
that the elimination of the tulip poplar
in favor of a smaller tree "weakened the
proportional link between arch and land-
scape which the scale of the tulip poplars
would have established." Letter, Dan Kiley
to Bob Moore, faxed June 26, 1998 (on file
in Historian's files, JNEM).
92. Bruce Detmers to Robert Hall, Chief
EODC, March 25, 1963 (copy on file in
JNEM Archives). The letter summarizes
points addressed at the March 18, 1963
meeting with the National Park Service to
discuss the landscape plan.
93. In a letter from an associate in the Kiley
office, "We intend using a consider-
able quantity of some of these plants
and, therefore, must be very certain of
their validity and how they react to city
conditions, local diseases, and pests, etc."
Records show that the letter, dated May
17, 1963 from Joseph P. Karr was sent to at
least the following: the Missouri Botanical
Garden; the City of St. Louis Department
of Parks, Recreation and Forestry; Mr.
Eldridge Lovelace, HB&A; and the
Morton Arboretum, Lisle, Illinois (copies
on file in JNEM Archives).
94. Eldridge Lovelace, HB&A, to Joseph P.
Karr, May 23, 1963 (copy on file in JNEM
Archives).
95. Shipman to Detmers, October 2, 1963.
This letter lists the sequence of drawings
prepared. In this same letter Shipman
describes the preparation of drawings for
a September 7, 1963 meeting illustrating
the lagoons: "The original 1/30 scale plan
by this time was in poor physical condition
due to erasing, and in anticipation of a
final meeting with Conrad Wirth a new
plan seemed both a practical necessity
and a desirable presentation item. During
the following weeks a discussion on the
'pros and cons' of lakes emerged, which
resulted in the then obsolete 1/30 scale
plan being revised to show a 'lake scheme.'
A sequence of study sketches was also
submitted for your consideration and were
subsequently drawn in more presentation
detail for the most recent meeting." Mr.
Robert G. Hall, Messrs. Smith, Desilets,
Associate Director Hartzog, and Assistant
Solicitor Meyer were all present at this
meeting as noted in a September 17, 1963
letter from Hall to the Office of Eero
Saarinen.
96. Robert Hall, Chief EODC, to the Office of
Eero Saarinen and Associates, September
17, 1963 (copy on file in JNEM Archives).
The letter also includes the following
comment: "We were interested to review
the suggested additional features for the
Memorial, as illustrated in some of the
sketches and in the extra plan which was
included in the presentation. However,
2-74 / SITE PHYSICAL HISTORY
JEFFERSON NATIONAL EXPANSION MEMORIAL CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT
similar proposals have been suggested
before but were not acceptable." This
comment presumably refers to the
reemergence of the ponds as a plan
element.
97. Transmittal for final landscape drawings,
dated November 4, 1964.
98. For more information regarding the
questions of the Arch's stability see
Brown, Administrative History, 138; JNEM
Archives Record Unit 106, Box 35 and 36;
and "Gateway Arch Design Tested in Wind
Tunnel," The Globe-Democrat Washington
Bureau, January 7, 1965 (copy on file in
JNEM Archives, Record Unit 119, Box 27).
99. Brown, Administrative History, 139.
100. This date is taken directly off the final
approved plan, No. 3071C (copy on file in
JNEM Archives, Record Unit 120, Drawer
12, Folder 10).
101. Glenn O. Hendrix, Chief, Design and
Construction, SSC to Acting Assistant
Director, Design and Construction, 26
May, 1969. JNEM Archives, Record Unit
106, Box 36, Folder 12. A reorganization
of the design and construction offices of
the National Park Service occurred early
in 1969. All of the areas in the Midwest
Regional Office (which included Jefferson
National Expansion Memorial) were
transferred from the Eastern Office of
Planning and Design to the San Francisco
Planning and Design Office (later called
the Western Service Center). A second
reorganization of the design and construc-
tion offices of the National Park Service
occured in 1972, when the Western Service
Center and the Eastern Office of Design
and Construction merged to form the
Denver Service Center (DSC) in Denver,
Colorado.
102. John Ronscavage, interview with Gina
Bellavia, Denver, CO, November 15, 1994.
John Ronscavage, Team Captain, Jefferson
National Expansion Memorial Design
Team, to Chief, Design and Construction,
SSC Glenn O. Hendrix, 23 July 1969.
JNEM Archives, Record Unit 106, Box 36,
Folder 12.
103. "Beauty, Not Bickering," St. Louis Post-
Dispatch. 26 February, 1968.
104. NPS, San Francisco Planning and Service
Center, Drawing No. 366/41001, "Site
Development, Arch, Jefferson National
Expansion Memorial," August 1969 (copy
on file in JNEM Archives, unprocessed
Rennison Collection).
105. Ibid.
106. Comparison of approved design develop-
ment plan (No. 3071C) and DSC construc-
tion drawing No. 366/41001.
107. Rich Huber to Ray Freeman, 20 March
1970. JNEM Archives, Record Unit 106,
Box 36, Folder 23. Mr. Huber indicated
that landscape architect John Ronscavage
had discussions with the City Forestry
Department which revealed that the
hemlock was not suited to the existing
conditions of the site.
108. Glenn O. Hendrix, Chief, Environmental
Planning and Design, WSC to Director,
NPS, 25 June, 1970. JNEM Archives,
Record Unit 106, Box 36, Folder 27.
This change is reflected on Jefferson
National Expansion Memorial drawing
No. 366/41001B (copy on file in JNEM
Archives, unprocessed Rennison
Collection).
109. "Nurserymen Fear Arch Landscape
May Stay Bleak." The Globe-Democrat, 5
February 1970.
110. Ibid.
111. Mrs. Kay Houlihan Behan to Senator
Thomas Eagleton, 11 March 1970; Mrs.
Paul Shatz to Representative Leonor
Sullivan, 13 March, 1970; Clarence Owens
to Senator Thomas Eagleton, 12 March
1970. JNEM Archives, Record Unit 106,
Box 36, Folder 23.
112. Thomas F Eagleton to Charles Hamilton,
16 March, 1970; Leonor K. Sullivan to
JEFFERSON NATIONAL EXPANSION MEMORIAL CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT
SITE PHYSICAL HISTORY / 2-75
George B. Hartzog, 18 March, 1970. JNEM
Archives, Record Unit 106, Box 36, Folders
23 and 25 respectively.
113. JNEM Drawing No. 366/41001C (copy
on file in JNEM Archives, unprocessed
Rennison Collection).
114. JNEM Drawing No. 366/41009 (copy
on file in JNEM Archives, unprocessed
Rennison Collection).
115. John Ronscavage, personal interview with
Gina Bellavia, 15 November 1994, page 21,
copy on file in JNEM Archives.
116. JNEM Drawing No. 366/41006 (copy
on file in JNEM Archives, unprocessed
Rennison Collection).
117. Joseph P. Karr, Office of Dan Kiley, to
Missouri Botanical Gardens, 17 May, 1963
(copy on file in JNEM Archives).
118. Raymond L. Freeman, Deputy Associate
Director, Professional Services to Charles
Hamilton, Assistant to the Secretary for
Congressional Liaison, 20 March, 1970.
JNEM Archives, Record Unit 106, Box 36,
Folder 23.
119. Ibid.
120. Ibid.
121. Harry W. Pfanz, Superintendent, Jefferson
National Expansion Memorial to Director,
Midwest Region. 27, April, 1970. JNEM
Archives, Record Unit 106, Box 36, Folder
26.
122. Glenn O. Hendrix, Chief, Environmental
Planning and Design, WSC to J.E.N.
Jensen, Associate Director, Professional
Services. 25 June, 1970. JNEM Archives,
Record Unit 106, Box 36, Folder 27.
123.
Ibid.
124. J.E.N. Jensen, Associate Director to
Director, Midwest Region. 23 July, 1970.
JNEM Archives, Record Unit 106, Box 36,
Folder 27.
125. Ibid.
126. "The Greening of The Riverfront," The
St. Louis Globe-Democrat, 29 May, 1971, by
Sue Ann Wood. JNEM Archives Record
Unit 119.
127. Ibid.
128. John Ronscavage, Captain JNEM Design
Team, to Director, Western Service
Center, 9 September 1971. JNEM Archives,
unprocessed Rennison Collection.
129. Ibid.
130. It is important to understand that
although the good qualities of the Rosehill
Ash were noted, no attempt was made to
maintain the visual and structural qualities
of the originally proposed tulip poplar.
The form, height, leaf color, and habit
of the Rosehill Ash is markedly different
from that of the tulip poplar proposed by
Dan Kiley.
131. Memorandum to Director, Western
Service Center from Team Captain,
Jefferson National Expansion Memorial
John Ronscavage, September 9, 1971. The
subject of the memorandum was the soils
report and revised plant list for Jefferson
National Expansion Memorial. The plant
list became the final used by the National
Park Service.
132. JNEM Drawing No. 366/41006 (copy
on file in JNEM Archives, unprocessed
Rennison Collection).
133. The changes are reflected on JNEM
Drawing No. 366/41027, produced by
Harland Bartholomew and Associates
(copy on file in JNEM Archives, Record
Unit 120, Drawer 15, Folder 3).
134. JNEM Drawing No. 366/41047 (copy on
file in JNEM Archives, Record Unit 120,
Drawer 14, Folder 1).
135. Basic Agreement between National Park
Service and Harland Bartholomew and
Associates, Contract No. CX-2000-3-0033,
January 12, 1973. Denver Service Center
2-76 / SITE PHYSICAL HISTORY
JEFFERSON NATIONAL EXPANSION MEMORIAL CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT
Storage, Accession No: 079-86-0008,
Box 2 of 7, RCL No. 902831 (copy on file
in JNEM Archives). Based on personal
conversations with John Ronscavage, the
NPS hired HB&A to complete construc-
tion document preparation because the
Jefferson National Expansion Memorial
project was taking too much of the DSC
designers' time. It is unclear at this point
why the NPS did not seek Kiley's services
for this purpose.
136. Special Provisions (Architect-Engineer
Basic Agreement) Contract No. CX-2000-
3-0033 Professional Services Various
Projects Jefferson National Expansion
Memorial, St. Louis, Missouri, 1973 Fiscal
Year Program. Denver Service Center
Storage Accession No. 079-86-0008, Box 2
of 7, RCLNo. 90283 (copy on file in JNEM
Archives).
137. Work Directive No. 0033-73-1, Basic
Agreement No. CX-2000-3-0033,
Jefferson National Expansion Memorial,
Page 7. The drawings provided by the
Government included 3071-C, 3030,
41001A, 41001C, 41009, 41006, and 3077,
and electrical system study of the Old
Courthouse by J. Kozel.
138. Ibid.
139. JNEM Drawings Nos. 366/41019, 41024A,
and 41027. Copies on file in JNEM
Archives, Record Unit 120.
140. JNEM Drawing No. 366/41025 (copy on
file in JNEM Archives, Record Unit 120).
141. Architect-engineer Contract No.
CX-2000-7-0013. The drawings produced
as a result of this contract are Nos.
366/41037, 41038, 41039, 41040, 41041, and
41042.
142. Stanley Dolecki, P. E., Harland
Bartholomew & Associates, to Bob Shelly,
NPS. October 4, 1977 (copy on file in
JNEM Archives).
143. The construction history is detailed later
in this chapter.
144. Eldridge Lovelace, former Partner, HB &
A, interview with Gina Bellavia, December
6,1994.
145. It is important to realize that although this
chapter of the cultural landscape report
documents the construction projects up
to 1996, the Saarinen/Kiley vision was not
yet fully realized. Several major projects
including a permanent maintenance
facility were done later, and others such as
pedestrian bridges over Memorial Drive
were in the original concept but not real-
ized.
146. See agreement between the United States
of America and the City of St. Louis,
March 1, 1951 (copy on file in JNEM
Archives, Record Unit 103, Box 7, Folder
3). The agreement allows the City to
finance the temporary beautification
of the Memorial grounds with money
collected from the parking lot that was
on the riverfront (in the north end of the
Memorial). It is made clear in the agree-
ment that the work will be temporary
pending implementation of the Saarinen
plan.
147. See "Riverfront Garden Started," St. Louis
Post-Dispatch, March 30, 1951 (copy on file
in JNEM Archives, Record Unit 119, Box
15). Landscape Architect G.J. Griesenauer
is mentioned. See also "Sunken Garden
To Be Laid Out Soon On River Front
Memorial," Star Times, February 20,
1951; "Riverfront Garden Will Be Built
To Improve Memorial," St. Louis Post-
Dispatch, February 20, 1951. Copies on file
in JNEM Archives, Record Unit 119.
148. See "Tidy Up River Front," St. Louis
Globe-Democrat, January 18, 1951; and
"$20,000 River Front Landscape Fund
Okayed," St. Louis Star Times, February
9, 1951. Copies on file in JNEM Archives,
Record Unit 119, Box 15.
149. A plan produced by Eero Saarinen and
Associates dated December 18, 1961 shows
a possible location for the reconstructed
building in the southwest corner of the
site (copy on file in JNEM Archives,
Record Unit 120, Drawing No. D120-0053).
JEFFERSON NATIONAL EXPANSION MEMORIAL CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT
SITE PHYSICAL HISTORY / 2-77
The building does not appear on later
Saarinen drawings and, according to
George Hartzog, this was due to the fact
that Saarinen didn't want to retain it. See
George B. Hartzog, oral history interview
with Bob Moore, October 25, 1994 (copy
on file in JNEM Archives).
150. Since the Manual Lisa Warehouse was
built into the limestone bluff, the west wall
could not be reconstructed with original
material. Therefore, an accurate recon-
struction according to NPS standards was
not possible. This played a large part in the
decision not to attempt a reconstruction
of the building.
151. The architectural fragments and ironwork
were donated to the Smithsonian and
others and the Denchar Warehouse was
subsequently demolished.
152. Brown, Administrative History, 131-132.
The low bid was $11, 923,1 63 which was
$3,856,163 above the government estimate.
MacDonald Construction Company
agreed to lower their bid by $500,000 and
NPS Director Conrad Wirth accepted
the bid for $11,442, 418. Ms. Brown gives a
detailed narrative of the bidding process
and some of the problems encountered.
153. See Brown, Administrative History for a
more detailed narrative of the construc-
tion of the Gateway Arch.
154. Ibid. See also John Ronscavage interview
with Gina Bellavia (copy on file in JNEM
Archives); and wind tunnel study, JNEM
Archives, Record Unit 106, Box 35, Folder
27.
155. See JNEM Archives, Record Unit 106,
Box 38, Folder 1 for correspondence
between the pastor of the Old Cathedral,
Jefferson National Expansion Memorial
Superintendent, and NPS Regional
Director regarding the request.
156. Correspondence from Superintendent
Ivan D. Parker to Colonel James E.
Sanders, President, Board of Police
Commissioners, March 22, 1971 (copy on
file in JNEM Archives, Record Unit 106,
Box 38, Folder 1).
157. "Beauty, Not Bickering," St. Louis Post-
Dispatch. February 26, 1968.
158. Drawing No. 366/41001-C "Site
Development Phase I (por) corre-
sponding to the work completed by
Kozeny- Wagner, Inc." and Drawing No.
366/41009A "Site Development Phase II
corresponding to the work completed by
Millstone Associates, Inc." were originally
both considered Phase I. For the purposes
of this report, their combined work
during the early 1970s will be referred to
as Phase I despite the fact that Drawing
No. 366/41009A is clearly labeled Phase II.
This helps to clarify the actual phases of
development.
159. See Drawing No. 41001-B (copy on file in
JNEM Archives, unprocessed Rennison
Collection).
160. See Drawing No. 4iooi-C(por) (copy
on file in JNEM Archives, unprocessed
Rennison Collection).
161. "Arch Landscaping Contract Let," St.
Louis Post-Dispatch. June 20, 1970. Kozeny
Wagner was awarded Contract No. 14-10-
7-971-267 for their low bid of $419,955.00.
162. Acting Director, Midwest Region to
Superintendent, Jefferson National
Expansion Memorial. June 23, 1970 (copy
on file in JNEM Archives, Record Unit
106, Box 36, Folder 27).
163. "Landscaping At Last For The Arch," St.
Louis Post-Dispatch. September 20, 1970.
164. Ibid.
165. "Aerodynamic Stability of Jefferson
National Expansion Memorial Gateway
Arch," written by Lloyd R. Cayes and
Charles F. Scheffey, U.S. Department of
Commerce, Bureau of Public Roads, July
1965 (copy on file in JNEM Archives,
Record Unit 106, Box 35, Folder 27).
See also, "Gateway Arch Design Tested
in Wind Tunnel," The St. Louis Globe
2-78 / SITE PHYSICAL HISTORY
JEFFERSON NATIONAL EXPANSION MEMORIAL CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT
Democrat. January 7, 1965 (copy on file in
JNEM Archives, Record Unit 119, Box 27).
166. The ponds were not constructed at this
time. The landscape was graded so that
there were low points where the ponds
would eventually be constructed.
167. "Bids opened on new Arch project."
St. Louis Post-Dispatch, March 26, 1971.
The contract number for this work was
4970B10045.
168. Contract No. 4970B101077 included the
sidewalks and tree wells, and contract
No. 4970B20053 included portions of the
sprinkler system.
169. See Completion Report, Planting Phase I,
Contract No. 4970B20053 (copy on file in
JNEM Archives, unprocessed Rennison
Collection). The work corresponded
to Drawing No. 366/41006 and was
completed for $135,562.50.
170. Completion Report, Planting Phase I,
Work Order No. 6525-8025-404, Contract
No. 4970B20053, Suburban Tree Service,
April 1974 (copy on file in JNEM Archives,
unprocessed Rennison Collection).
171. Ibid; "Arch Landscaping," The St. Louis
Post-Dispatch, December 19, 1971 (copy on
file in JNEM Archives, Record Unit 119).
172. Lambert Field is northwest of St. Louis
and is the site of the city's main airport,
Lambert — St. Louis International
Airport.
173. Ted Rennison replaced Jim Holland
as Project Inspector in late July 1972.
Rennison continued to work at Jefferson
National Expansion Memorial for many
more years.
174. Robert B. Schall, President of Suburban
Tree Service, Inc. to Mr. Leon R.
Thygesen, Contracting Officer, National
Park Service, April 16, 1973 (copy on file in
JNEM Archives, unprocessed Rennison
Collection).
175. Completion Report, Work Order No.
6525-7600-503, Contract No. CX6000-4-
9009, Harding Electric Company, Walk
and Area Lighting, March 22, 1976 (copy
on file in JNEM Archives, unprocessed
Rennison Collection). The contract was
completed at a cost of $148,580.98).
176. Completion Report, Work Order No.
6525-7103-404, Contract No. CX6000-4-
9017, Hankins Construction Company,
Temporary Maintenance Building, May
22, 1975 (copy on file in JNEM Archives,
unprocessed Rennison Collection).
The contract was completed at a cost of
$57>7 2 3-oo).
177. Completion Report, Work Order No.
6525-7601-503, Contract No. CX6000-4-
9018, Sahrmann Construction Company,
Overlook Paving, February 9, 1976 (copy
on file in JNEM Archives, unprocessed
Rennison Collection). The contract was
completed at a cost of $115,296.44.
178. Completion Report, Work Order No.
6520-7602-503, Contract No. CX6000-5-
9005, Kozeny- Wagner, Inc., Monumental
Entrance, 5 January, 1977 (copy on file in
JNEM Archives, unprocessed Rennison
Collection).
179. Brown, Administrative History, 179; and
Statement for Management, Jefferson
National Expansion Memorial, 26. In 1980,
the poured-in-place concrete was overlaid
with pre-cast exposed aggregate concrete.
180. It is important to understand that HB&A
did not do very much design. The
construction documents and specifica-
tions produced by the firm were based
on the approved Saarinen/Kiley design
development plan.
181. Memorandum from John Ronscavage,
Landscape Architect, to Chief, Branch of
Construction, Midwest/Rocky Mountain
Team, Denver Service Center, December
19, 1978 (copy on file in JNEM Archives,
unprocessed Rennison Collection).
182. DSC Storage, Accession No. 079-86-0008,
Box 2 of 7, Records Center Location
JEFFERSON NATIONAL EXPANSION MEMORIAL CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT
SITE PHYSICAL HISTORY / 2-79
No. 902831, Basic Agreement No.
CX-2000-3-0033; Special Provisions,
Work Directive No. 0033-73-1.
183. Robert Chandler, personal telephone
conversation with Gina Bellavia, March
1996.
184. Moore, Urban Innovations and Practical
Partnerships, 110-114, 12 &- Although Jerry
Schober takes credit for proposing to
bring the trees in by helicopter, it should
be noted that Mike Mayberry (Foreman,
Shelton and Sons Landscaping) has
disagreed. In a personal conversation with
Gina Bellavia, Mayberry said it was his
decision, and idea, as the contractor to
import the trees by helicopter. According
to Mayberry, 800 trees were lifted and
planted in 10 hours. The seed mix used
at the time was developed by former
Superintendent Robert Chandler. The mix
consisted of 49% arboretum bluegrass,
15% regal ryegrass, 15% creeping red
fescue, 10% glade bluegrass, and 10%
Kentucky bluegrass. This mix became
known as the "Arch Grounds Seed Mix"
and was available on the market.
185. Moore, Urban Innovations and Practical
Partnerships, 13-22. Moore details the
cooperative agreement between the
National Park Service, City of St. Louis,
and Bi-State Development Agency.
186. Ibid. Copies of the designs and specifica-
tions produced by WVP Corporation are
on file in the Jefferson National Expansion
Memorial Facility Manager's Office.
2-80 / SITE PHYSICAL HISTORY
JEFFERSON NATIONAL EXPANSION MEMORIAL CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT
BROADWAY
_[-EGEND
ADDED DURING PERIOD
REMOVED DURING PERIOD
FENCE LINE
SIDEWALK
CONSTRUCTION ROAD
BUILDING
(1960) DATE FEATURE WAS REMOVED/ADDED
RAILROAD
|^™|
OCH
°»w
o
J
FOURTH ST
LUTHER ELY
-SMITH SOUARE
(1951)
HARF 5T
SWLE: 1' - 1«
MAP SOURCE: TOPOGRAPHS SURVEY JNEM-
NPS SEPT. 1948 BY ARMY
CORPS OF ENGINEERS;
PHOTOGRAPHS
CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT;
JEFFERSON NATIONAL EXPANSION MEMORIAL
1959-1968 PERIOD PLAN
SAINT LOUIS, MISSOURI
DRAWN:
CHAN
TECH. REVIEW:
BELLAVIA
DATE:
7/96
DRAWING NO.
366
80.020
SHEET
1 0F_6_
Figure 2.48. Period Plan, 1959 - 1968. (Chan, NPS, 1996)
JEFFERSON NATIONAL EXPANSION MEMORIAL CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT
SITE PHYSICAL HISTORY / 2-81
THIS PAGE LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK
JEFFERSON NATIONAL EXPANSION MEMORIAL CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT
BROADWAY
LECENIL
| ;J ADDED DURING PERIOD
- FENCE LINE
SIDEWALK
CONSTRUCTION ROAD
BUILDING
(19605 DATE FEATURE WAS ADDED
TTT RAILROAD
© TREE
TREE IN TREE WELL
TREE FLAWING AROUND
"RAILROAD CUTS (1971-1972)
TREE PLANTING AROUND
RAILROAD CUTS (1971-1972)
5C*l£: I - - 1*V
MAP SOURCE: JEFF DWGS 366/41 009A;
41035A; 41037A; 41039A
CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT:
JEFFERSON NATIONAL EXPANSION MEMORIAL
1969-1973 PERIOD PLAN
SAINT LOUIS, MISSOURI
DRAWN:
CHAN
TECH. REVIEW:
BELLAVIA
DATE
7/96
DRAWING NO.
366
30.020
SHEET
2 QF_JL
Figure 2.49. Period Plan, 1969 - 1973. (Chan, NPS, 1996)
JEFFERSON NATIONAL EXPANSION MEMORIAL CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT
SITE PHYSICAL HISTORY / 2-83
THIS PAGE LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK
JEFFERSON NATIONAL EXPANSION MEMORIAL CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT
BROADWAY
I FrJNft
ADDED DURING PERIOD
FENCE LINE
SIDEWALK
CONSTRUCTION ROAD
BUILDING
(i960) DATE FEATURE WAS ADDED
»=£ RAILROAD
© TREE
£> TREE IN TREE WELL
LUTHER ELY
SMITH SQUARE
! ^
'MUSEUM OF
WESTWARD
EXPANSION
(1974-1376)
UNDERGROUND -1
VISITOR CENTER
GATEWAY ARCH
GRAND
STAtRCASE
1975-1971
EON OR K SULLIVAN BLVD
MAP SOURCE: JEFF OWGS 366/41024;
41031; 60010
CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT:
JEFFERSON NATIONAL EXPANSION MEMORIAL
1974-1977 PERIOD PLAN
SAINT LOUIS. MISSOURI
DRAWN:
CHAN
TECH, REVIEW;
BELLAVIA
DATE:
7/96
DRAWING MO.
366
80,020
SHEET
3 0F_§_
Figure 2.50. Period Plan, 1974 - 1977. (Chan, NPS, 1996)
JEFFERSON NATIONAL EXPANSION MEMORIAL CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT
SITE PHYSICAL HISTORY / 2-85
THIS PAGE LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK
JEFFERSON NATIONAL EXPANSION MEMORIAL CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT
Figure 2.51. Period Plan, 1978 - 1985. (Chan, NPS, 1996)
JEFFERSON NATIONAL EXPANSION MEMORIAL CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT
SITE PHYSICAL HISTORY / 2-87
THIS PAGE LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK
JEFFERSON NATIONAL EXPANSION MEMORIAL CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT
SPECIES LIST
BUR OAK - OUERCU5 MACR0CARPA
RED OAK - QUERCUS RUBRA
SWAMP WHrTE OAK - OUERCUS BICOLOR
RED MAPLE - ACER RUBRUM
SUGAR MAPLE - ACER SACCHARUM
AMUR MAPL£ - ACES GINNALA
NORWAY MAPLE - ACER PLATANCHDE5
JAPANESE BLACK PINE - PlNUS THUN8ERGH
RED PINE - PlNUS RESINOSA
'RADIANT* CRAgAPPLE - MALUS 'RADIANT'
"SNOWDRIFT" CRASAPPLE - MALUS 'SNOWDRIFT
REDSPlRE' PEAR - PYRUS CALLEHYANA REDSPIRE'
'ROSEHILL' ASH - FRAXINUS AMERICANA ROSEHILL'
'MARSHALL' ASH - FRAXINUS PENNSYLVANICA 'MARSHALL'
BALDCYPRESS - TAXCDIUM DIST1CHUM
JAPANESE PAGODA TREE - SQPHORA JAPC+IICA
fiEDBOD - CERCIS CANADENSIS
tfNTENANCE BLDG
-SW WALK
KENTUCKY COFFEE TREE - GYMNOCLADUS DlOlCUS
GREENSPIRE UTTLELEAF LINDEN - T1LIA CORDATA 'GREENS PI RE'
'SHADEMASTER" HONEYLQCUST - GLEDfTSIA TRIACAMTHQS VAR.
iNERMtS 'SHADEMASTER'
SAUCER MAGNOLIA - MAGNOLIA X SOULANGIANA
'BRADFORD' PEAR - PYRUS CAU-ERYANA "BRADFORD"
AMUR CORKTREE - PHELLODEMDRON AMURENCE
SUGAR HACK BERRY - CELT IS LAEVIGATA
FLOWERING DOGWOOD - CGRNUS FLORIDA
WASHINGTON HARTHORN - CRATAEGUS PHAENOPYRUM
JAPANESE ZELKOVA - ZELKOVA SERRATA
DOWNY SERVICE BERRY - AMELANCHIER ARBOREA
RIVER BIRCH - BETULA NIGRA
AMERICAN SWEETOUM - UOLUDAMBAR STYRAC'ELUA
GINKGO - GINKGO BILOBA
SWEETBAY MAGNOLIA - MAGNOLIA VIRGINIAN*
SOUTHERN MAGNOLIA - MAGNOLIA CRANDirLORA
BROADWAY
FOURTH ST
LUTHER ELY
"SMITH SQUARE
*- —
* :
*
* * i
* *
8
m
#
.5
41
m •
^^^i *
. LJ
T
1 U
J£GENJJ„
SIDEWALK
J BUILDING
3=0: RAILROAD
© TREE
TREE IN TREE WELL
PLAQUE LEGEND
1 JOSEPH PULITZER
2. LUTHER ELY SMITH MEMORIAL MARKER
J. AMERICAN SOCIETY OF CML ENGINEERS
4. THE GATEWAY ARCH
5. CAPTAIN MERIWETHER LEWIS
6. GREAT FLOOD OF 1993
7. SAARINEN MEMORIAL
8. CAPTAIN WILLIAM CLARK
NW WALK-
MEMORIAL OR
u
/— Z^^ ~~~~~ ^" ft t OLD
/ ■■■-' ' — T^ 7 ^nr^NED Tf - -Wh™^
•VV » • Z \ { ^-n sou™ P0ND I 'V 7 \ * ■ Vr*V. * ^
».
•• * ■
*••'
'"J c
MUSEUM OF
WESTWARD
EXPANSION
UNDERGROUND
VISITOR CENTER
SOUTH OVERLOOK
GATEWAY ARCH-
GRAND
STAIRCASE
« * • *
^^
i ECNOR K SUU VAK P. V'D
'1 *r-
S^^ ^
T "v—*?^.^**^^
son. 1-
-'»'.''
MAP SOURCE: 1995 KUHLMANN DESIGN
GROUP; 1995 TREE INVENTORY
& CONDITION ASSESSMENT
CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT:
JEFFERSON NATIONAL EXPANSION MEMORIAL
1986 -1996 PERIOD PLAN
SAINT LOUIS, MISSOURI
DRAWN:
CHAN
TECH. REVIEW:
BELLAVIA
DATE:
7/96
DRAWING NO
366
SO.C70
SHEET
5 OF_S_
Figure 2.52. Period Plan, 1986 - 1996. (Chan, NPS, 1996)
JEFFERSON NATIONAL EXPANSION MEMORIAL CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT
SITE PHYSICAL HISTORY / 2-89
THIS PAGE LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK
JEFFERSON NATIONAL EXPANSION MEMORIAL CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT
Legend
Maintenance facility -
Baldcypress circle
f vLeonor K. Sullivan Boulevar
/ — \~~
/ \ Rest area
/ \
z \ Single-species allees
/ \
/ v System of pedestrian walks
JEFFERSON NATIONAL EXPANSION MEMORIAL
Figure 2.53. Period Plan, 1997 - 2009. (AECOM, 2010)
JEFFERSON NATIONAL EXPANSION MEMORIAL CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT
SITE PHYSICAL HISTORY / 2-91
THIS PAGE LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK
JEFFERSON NATIONAL EXPANSION MEMORIAL CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT
Existing Conditions
Existing conditions documentation in this
chapter provides an overview of features and
systems for the Jefferson National Expansion
Memorial landscape. The chapter begins with
a description of the environmental context
and landscape setting of the Memorial. The
context provides an understanding of the
relationship between the cultural landscape
and its broader environment. Following this,
the landscape is inventoried as a collection of
features, organized into sections by landscape
characteristics.
In 2009, field work included a site survey of
existing landscape conditions for the purpose
of updating the 1995 condition assessments,
and documentation through photography
and notation. 1 Black-and-white photographs
were taken in 1995 and digital color photos
in 2009 to document landscape features and
conditions. The condition of each landscape
feature was evaluated based on the criteria
developed for the Cultural Landscape
Inventory (CLI) and the NPS Guide to Cultural
Landscape Reports: 1
Good: The features of the landscape need
no intervention; only minor or routine
maintenance is needed.
Fair: Some deterioration, decline, or damage
is noticeable; the feature may require
immediate intervention; if intervention is
deferred, the feature will require extensive
attention in three to five years.
Poor: Deterioration, decline, or damage is
serious; the feature is seriously deteriorated
or damaged, or presents a hazardous
condition; due to the level of deterioration,
damage, or danger the feature requires
extensive and immediate attention.
Unknown: Not enough information is
available to make an evaluation.
The following narrative summarizes the
existing conditions of the site. A 2010 Existing
Conditions Plan is located at the end of this
chapter (see Figure 2.52).
ENVIRONMENTAL CONTEXT
The Mississippi River is the most significant
natural feature which directly affects the
Memorial and adjacent lands. Just north of St.
Louis, the Missouri River converges with the
Mississippi River. The Memorial grounds have
been affected as a result of periodic flooding by
the Mississippi River. The average depth of the
river in St. Louis is 11.20 feet. The flood stage
is 30 feet. In 1993, flood waters reached their
highest recorded mark of 49.58 feet, 19.58 feet
above flood stage.
The St. Louis Metropolitan Area encompasses
approximately 5,300 square miles. It is made
up of portions of both Missouri and Illinois,
divided by the Mississippi River, and nine
counties. The population of the metropolitan
area in 1990 was 2,444,099, ranked 17 th in the
country. 3 In 2007, U.S. Census data placed the
St. Louis Metropolitan Area population at
2,803,707, an increase of nearly 15 percent since
1990. In spite of this, its ranking has decreased
slightly, making St. Louis the 18 th largest
metropolitan area in the United States. 4
LANDSCAPE SETTING
The perimeter of the Memorial is defined by
roads, and the Memorial itself is intersected
by two major streets. The main portion of the
Memorial, adjacent to the river, is bounded
to the north by Washington Avenue, to the
3.0
JEFFERSON NATIONAL EXPANSION MEMORIAL CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT
EXISTING CONDITIONS / 3-1
east by Leonor K. Sullivan Boulevard, to the
south by Poplar Street; and separated from
Luther Ely Smith Square on its western edge
by Memorial Drive and the depressed I-70
expressway. Luther Ely Smith Square and
the Old Courthouse are separated by Fourth
Street, and bounded by Chestnut Street to the
north and Market Street to the south.
Washington Avenue is a city street located
along the north edge of the Memorial. North
of Washington Avenue is Eads Bridge, the
northern boundary line of the Memorial. Eads
Bridge was listed on the National Register
of Historic Places in 1966 and is a National
Historic Landmark. The entrances to the
Memorial grounds from Washington Avenue
occur at the parking garage and at the plaza
at the northwest corner of the Memorial
grounds.
Adjacent to the northern boundary of the
Memorial on the north side of Eads Bridge
is Laclede's Landing. A rehabilitated historic
district, Laclede's Landing has restaurants,
bars, and small shops. This area resembles
the landscape setting of historic warehouses
that once occupied the entire riverfront in
the Memorial area. Connections between this
area and the Memorial include two pedestrian
openings and three vehicular street openings
in the Eads Bridge.
Leonor K. Sullivan Boulevard runs along
the Mississippi riverfront, and is closed
when flooding occurs. The grand staircase,
along with the curving, battered walls of
the overlooks, together with the adjacent
landform, function as a floodwall system along
the street edge.
The southern boundary of the Memorial,
Poplar Street, is located below the interchange
of four interstate highways: I-70, 1-55, 1-44, and
I-64. Chouteau's Landing, a 19 th - and 20 th -
century warehouse district, is situated south of
the Memorial grounds.
Memorial Drive is composed of a pair of
one-way streets classified as a minor arterial,
with two sets of on/off ramps to the interstate
occurring along its length adjacent to the
Memorial. The I-70 expressway runs at a lower
grade than Memorial Drive in a "depressed
section" between Pine and Walnut Streets.
Two entries to the Memorial grounds are sited
along the western edge where Memorial Drive
intersects Market Street and Chestnut Street.
These intersections underwent repair and
resurfacing in 2009. 5
A cooperative agreement between the United
States and the Archdiocese of St. Louis dated
February 23, 1961 provided for the preservation
and interpretation of the Old Cathedral. This
agreement is still in effect. The Old Cathedral
is a fully functioning Catholic Church located
within the boundary of the Memorial. The
Cathedral and the land it occupies are owned
by the Catholic Church. Adjacent land north
of the Cathedral is used by the Church to
accommodate air-conditioning units, and
a surface parking lot to the south serves
the congregation. Both of these areas are
administered under special use permits. 6
The Terminal Railroad Association (TRRA)
has a perpetual easement on a rail alignment
that runs through tunnels and open cuts within
the Memorial grounds. 7 In 1981 the agreement
was modified to accommodate railyard traffic
so that the tracks on Leonor K. Sullivan
Boulevard could be removed. The TRRA
removed and replaced the entire track bed and
installed one set of tracks in the center of the
alignment in 1997.
The Gateway Arch's designation as a National
Icon by the Department of the Interior resulted
in security requirements that were instituted
after September 11, 2001. This included the
addition of bollards along the north, west, and
south perimeter of the grounds. In 2010, the
park was planning to add large planters along
Leonor K. Sullivan Boulevard on the eastern
perimeter of the park. Additional security
features include a security checkpoint within
the visitor center entrances, and the addition
of security cameras on the grounds.
SPATIAL ORGANIZATION
The Memorial is designed as a unified
landscape, and its monumental character
is achieved by a sequence of spaces which
orchestrate movement, create or screen views,
and contrast a sense of spatial compression
and expansion through the use of proportion
3-2
/ EXISTING CONDITIONS
JEFFERSON NATIONAL EXPANSION MEMORIAL CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT
and scale (see Figure 3.52). These spaces are
shaped and defined by the combination of
landform, vegetation, circulation, structures,
views, and other landscape features discussed
in detail in sections that follow.
The Memorial grounds are roughly bilaterally
symmetrical to the north and south of a central
axis running from the Mississippi River to the
Old Courthouse, through the center of the
Gateway Arch. This alignment is a primary
organizing feature of the landscape. The
contrast between the monumental expanse
of space around the commanding vertical
presence of the Gateway Arch and the ordered,
enclosed space created by the tree-lined walks
along the north-south axis has a strong visual
and sensory impact. The grand staircase forms
a monumental threshold along the primary
axis, connecting to the river levee.
The tree-enclosed walkways terminate at
the northeast and southeast corners of the
Memorial grounds at overlooks where an
expansive space emphasizes the horizontal
plane and the view to the Mississippi River.
The overlooks are monumental plinths and
serve as viewing platforms for the river,
East St. Louis, as well as the Gateway
Arch. The overlook walls and staircases,
together with the slopes and grand staircase,
form topographic variations of up to 55
feet between the Memorial grounds and
the riverfront along Leonor K. Sullivan
Boulevard. From the boulevard, the ground
slopes gently down to the river.
The system of walks and allees forms a
unified space which spans the length and
breadth of the Memorial, the graceful curving
walks echoing the catenary curve of the
Gateway Arch. Along the north-south axis,
the dense, evenly-spaced triple allees create
Figure 3.1 View along walk between north triangle
and northeast plaza. Note lights and single-species
tree planting.
Figure 3.2. View along walk in southern part of Memorial grounds; note single-species tree planting , tree
grates, and lights.
JEFFERSON NATIONAL EXPANSION MEMORIAL CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT
EXISTING CONDITIONS / 3-3
an enclosed, rhythmically ordered forest
space which contrasts with the open space
surrounding the Gateway Arch. The uniform
height of the trees creates a dense ceiling
canopy for the walks. The lawn areas located
within the north-south walkways (referred to
as the "triangles" and "teardrops") function
to compress the pedestrian corridor alongside
them, contrasting with the monumental space
of the primary axis (see Figures 3.1 and 3.2).
Enclosed spaces created by vegetation and
sculpted landforms surround the ponds.
The north and south ponds each sit within a
gentle depression, creating a sense of physical
separation from the surrounding city. This
contrasts with the sheltered, wooded walks.
The two baldcypress (Taxodium distichum)
circles are located northwest and southwest of
the north and south ponds, respectively. They
are densely planted, textured enclosures, with
openings that frame views of the Gateway Arch
(see Figure 3.3).
Luther Ely Smith Square is a one-block area
bounded by Market Street, Fourth Street,
Chestnut Street, and Memorial Drive. The
entire area slopes gently down toward the
east at a three percent grade. A central sunken
area, measuring approximately 65 by 220 feet,
is three to five feet lower than the adjacent
streets. Concrete walks define three central
squares of lawn which range in area from 800
to 1,500 square feet and have central squares
of ornamental grasses and perennials. The
roughly 70-foot-wide lawns along the north
and south sides of the central area slope
toward Memorial Drive. These lawn areas are
planted with two parallel rows of trees spaced
approximately 50 feet on center (see Figure
34)-
The Old Courthouse block is the western
terminus of the central east-west axis of
Jefferson National Expansion Memorial. The
large, domed, cruciform Old Courthouse
Figure 3.3. View of the Gateway Arch across the south pond from the southwest
baldcypress circle.
3-4
/ EXISTING CONDITIONS
JEFFERSON NATIONAL EXPANSION MEMORIAL CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT
A ^
Figure 3.4. View across Luther Ely Smith Square to
the Gateway Arch.
Figure 3.5. The Old Courthouse.
Figure 3.6. View of the side of the Gateway Arch
from the north triangle.
occupies the entire block, providing a strong
vertical element. Adjacent to each of the four
wings are roughly equal-sized courtyards
bounded by a wrought-iron fence. Each of the
four courtyards has a centrally located planting
or architectural feature (see Figure 3.5).
The maintenance facility is inset into a bowl-
shaped depression edging Poplar Street on the
south, with slopes along the north, east, and
west intended to hide this functional area from
the rest of the Memorial grounds.
TOPOGRAPHY
The designed landform of Jefferson National
Expansion Memorial is defined by graceful,
undulating curves which create a complex
ground plane. The Memorial grounds were
constructed with imported fill material
which reaches approximately 55 feet above
the Mississippi River, and accentuates the
site's significant vertical features, including
the Gateway Arch, the Old Courthouse,
the overlooks, and the allees of trees along
the walks. The Memorial's landform works
together with vegetation to hide, reveal,
and frame views of the Gateway Arch at key
locations in the landscape, such as the high
points of the triangles along the north-south
axis of the Arch, which create a base for
designed views of the sides of the Arch (see
Figure 3.6). The sculpted topography also
hides the railroad tracks, service functions,
the Old Cathedral parking lot, and Memorial
Drive, and creates a sense of remove from the
surrounding city. The irregularly bowl-shaped
gentle depressions around the ponds create an
expanse of enclosed space and frame views of
the Gateway Arch (see Figure 3.7).
The ground plane is generally level underneath
the Gateway Arch at an elevation of
approximately 446 feet above mean sea level.
The elevation gently increases to the north
and south and culminates at two high points
at the triangles, which sit at elevations of about
470 feet, a 25-foot vertical change. Toward the
west, a gentle slope rises 19 feet from the base
of the Gateway Arch to a berm which parallels
Memorial Drive, providing a visual base to the
Old Courthouse while effectively concealing
Memorial Drive (see Figure 3.8).
JEFFERSON NATIONAL EXPANSION MEMORIAL CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT
EXISTING CONDITIONS / 3-5
Figure 3.7. The south pond sits in an open, gently depressed landform.
Figure 3.8. A berm creates a visual base for the
Old Courthhouse when viewed from below the
Gateway Arch.
Figure 3.9. Landform and vegetation create frames
for views of Gateway Arch from the south pond.
The most extreme grade changes occur at the
overlooks, around the ponds, at the service
areas, and at the maintenance facility. The
overlooks are plinths perched more than 50
feet above the river. From the top of the large
retaining walls is a 55-foot drop to Leonor K.
Sullivan Boulevard. In contrast, undulating
topography around the ponds (where slopes
range from 14 to 47 percent) works together
with vegetation to frame iconic views of the
Gateway Arch (see Figures 3.3, 3.7, and 3.9).
In some places, there is a vertical change of
almost 30 feet descending from the walks at
the top of slope down to the pond edge. The
service areas are in depressions and provide
access to the service areas for the underground
visitor center and Museum of Westward
Expansion. Retaining walls around the service
areas contain the steep slopes, ranging from
38 to 66 percent. The grade drops 16 feet at
the north service area (containing a generator
building and heating, ventilation, and air
conditioning equipment) and 25 feet at the
south service area (containing the shipping and
receiving entrance). The maintenance facility
sits in a hollow at an elevation of 423 feet,
about 23 feet below the surrounding area, an
intentional gesture to hide the building from
sightlines on the north-south axis. The grass
slopes average between 25 and 35 percent.
There are some very steep (50 to 70 percent)
slopes on the site, particularly around the
railroad open cuts and tunnels, the parking
garage, and east of the maintenance building.
These slopes are predominantly planted in
lawn, and appear to have been affected by
3-6
/ EXISTING CONDITIONS
JEFFERSON NATIONAL EXPANSION MEMORIAL CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT
erosion and gradual subsidence in some
places. There are some drainage and erosion
problems at the northeast end of the north
pond and at the southeast end of the south
pond. Erosion has incrementally altered the
landform in some areas.
The soil composition at the Memorial is
largely undetermined, being composed
primarily of a 10- to 30-foot-deep section of
undocumented fill (which includes building
rubble) atop limestone bedrock.
VIEWS AND VISTAS
View between the Old Courthouse
and the Gateway Arch
The primary view at the Memorial is along
the axis between the Old Courthouse and the
Gateway Arch. This unobstructed view forms
a relationship between the Old Courthouse,
the Gateway Arch, the river, and East St. Louis
(see Figure 3.10).
Vistas along the North-South Axis
The vistas along the north-south axis hide
and reveal the Gateway Arch along the system
of walks (see Figure 3.11). They are partially
blocked by the trees along the walks.
Views between the Memorial
and East St. Louis
The view of the Gateway Arch and St. Louis
from the east side of the Mississippi River was
a major consideration of the Saarinen/Kiley
plan throughout its development. Currently,
none of the East St. Louis riverfront is part
of the Memorial or NPS lands. A viewing
platform was constructed on the east side of
the river in Malcolm Martin Memorial Park in
2009. This view illustrates the Gateway Arch
in relation to the city which it symbolizes. The
industrial land uses on the east side of the
river at this time limit opportunities for the
enjoyment of this view. An important view
from the Memorial is across the river to East
St. Louis. A large wooded area is visible to the
Figure 3.10. View from the Old Courthouse to the
Gateway Arch.
Figure 3.12. View of the Memorial from East St. Louis.
Figure 3.11. View along the north-south axis, from the
south triangle to the Gateway Arch.
Figure 3.13. View to East St. Louis from the Memorial's
north overlook. Note the fountain and grain elevator.
JEFFERSON NATIONAL EXPANSION MEMORIAL CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT
EXISTING CONDITIONS / 3-7
south, and The Casino Queen and parking lot
are visible to the north. Directly across from
the Memorial are the Cargill grain elevator,
multiple railroad tracks, and a fountain built in
the early 1990s (see Figures 3.12 and 3.13).
Views Around the Ponds
Iconic views of the Gateway Arch are available
from the open lawn areas around both ponds.
From the north and south ponds, there are
also views to downtown St. Louis, although
Memorial Drive is screened by bermed land-
forms (see Figure 3.7). From the south pond,
there are views to the Old Cathedral spire.
Views From the Overlooks
The overlooks were designed as viewing plat-
forms. There are views from both overlooks
towards the Gateway Arch, to East St. Louis,
and to the river (see Figure 3.14). From the
north overlook there are views to the historic
Figure 3.14. View towards the Gateway Arch from the
south overlook.
Eads Bridge and from the south overlook there
are views to the Poplar Street Bridge.
Screened Views of Service Areas
Views to the service areas (shipping and
receiving and generator buidlings) are well
screened from view within the Memorial
grounds. The view to the maintenance facility
from the south walkways, however, is not suffi-
ciently screened from view (see Figure 3.15).
BUILDINGS AND STRUCTURES
The majority of the buildings and structures
on the Memorial grounds were constructed
between 1959 and 1976. The oldest are the
Old Courthouse, constructed from 1839 to
1862, and the Old Cathedral, completed in
1834. Structures added between 1984 and 2003
include the parking garage, the maintenance
facility, and the central section of the grand
staircase. A visual inspection of the buildings
and structures indicates that there is some
deterioration, but structural analysis has
not been completed as part of this report.
Some structures are being assessed thorugh
Historic Structure Reports (HSRs). In 2000, a
seismic study was completed by FEMA for all
memorial buildings and structures except the
Gateway Arch. The following summarizes the
existing conditions based on visual assessment
in 1996 and 2009 and review of the Project
Management Information System for the
Memorial. 8
Buildings
Old Cathedral
The Old Cathedral was begun in 1831 from
plans prepared by Joseph Laveille and George
Morton and completed in 1834. The limestone
Figure 3.15. Partially screened view to maintenance
facility.
Figure 3.16. The Old Cathedral.
3-8 / EXISTING CONDITIONS
JEFFERSON NATIONAL EXPANSION MEMORIAL CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT
Old Cathedral is in the Greek Revival style.
Although within the Memorial boundary,
the building is owned and cared for by the
Roman Catholic Archdiocese of St. Louis. The
stonework appears to have worn somewhat
over time, but the building appears to be in
good condition (see Figure 3.16).
Old Courthouse
The Old Courthouse was built between 1839
and 1862. It is a three-story Greek Revival
brick and stone building designed by several
architects. The building is a Greek cross in
plan; the junction of the four wings forms a
central domed rotunda (see Figure 3.17). The
Old Courthouse forms one terminus of the
primary axis to the river.
Gateway Arch
The condition of the Gateway Arch was not
assessed. It has not been structurally analyzed
since its completion in 1965, but this work was
ongoing in 2009 as part of a Historic Structure
Report. A cursory inspection of the Gateway
Arch legs and foundation construction joints in
1984 revealed defects, and possible water intru-
sion between the outer and inner skins.' Marks
on the exterior stainless steel skin are visible
at about 350 feet above the ground. A staining
investigation was performed in 2007. Problems
continue to occur with visitors scratching
initials on the exterior of the north and south
legs. An analysis is needed to determine if any
damage has occurred to the structure and what
measures may be needed to repair or stabilize
it. A Historic Structure Report was being
written in 2009 and will be released in 2010.
Visitor Center and Museum
of Westward Expansion
The underground visitor center and Museum
of Westward Expansion, completed in 1976,
was designed by Aram Mardirosian. A struc-
tural analysis of the underground visitor center
was completed in 1989-1990. The analysis
began as a simple investigation to locate the
source of water intrusion but ultimately led to
the discovery of cracks in the ceiling support
beams. Structural reinforcements were erected
and the roof was waterproofed. 10 As a result
of this work, portions of the interior of the
visitor center were altered. The American
Indian Peace Medal Exhibit, two museum
stores, and a ticket purchasing area have since
been added. The condition of the visitor center
and Museum of Westward Expansion was not
assessed for this report.
Maintenance Facility
The existing maintenance facility was built in
2003. It is a two-story building constructed
of concrete masonry units. The facility sits in
a hollow in the landform, intended to screen
the building from view of visitor areas at the
Memorial (see Figure 3.18).
Parking Garage
The parking garage is inset into the landform
on its south and west sides, with a significant
difference in grade between the garage and
the adjacent overlook. Completed in 1986, the
Figure 3.17. The Old Courthouse.
I^^^H - — _^_ m>\ gn l ■
"71 - ^m^ MW
Figure 3.18. The maintenance facility.
Figure 3.19. Parking garage from Washington Avenue.
JEFFERSON NATIONAL EXPANSION MEMORIAL CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT
EXISTING CONDITIONS / 3-9
garage is a three-level building punctuated by
horizontal openings along the beige-brown
exposed-aggregate concrete facade, as well
as two larger openings at the entry and exit
points. The condition of the parking garage
was not assessed in this report. The garage
is maintained by the Bi-State Development
Agency, now called Metro (see Figure 3.19).
Structures
North and South Overlooks
The north and south overlooks are located
4,000 feet apart along the eastern edge of
the Memorial. The overlooks consist of
expansive plazas at the north and south ends
of the Memorial over the rail tunnels, with a
small elevated viewing platform at the end of
each. The edge of the steps to the platform is
cantilevered. A storage area is located beneath
the north viewing platform.
The plazas and platforms sit atop monumental,
vertically and horizontally curving walls,
beginning at street level and rising along
the staricases to a height of 55 feet, and also
functioning as floodwalls. The beige concrete
walls of the overlooks have a board-formed
pattern. An unusual, vertically curving staircase
descends from each overlook to Leonor K.
Sullivan Boulevard. The treads of the staircases
have eight-inch risers; the steps decrease in
depth from 11 feet at the base to three feet at the
top to create a curved vertical line in the same
family as that of the Gateway Arch (see Figures
3.20, 3.21, and 3.22).
The north and south overlooks were
constructed in the early 1960s and have
not been structurally analyzed since their
completion. They were visually assessed in
1996 and 2009 and appear to be in fair to poor
condition. Spalling concrete, cracking, and
pieces of concrete falling from the floodwalls
have been recurrent problems. Temporary
measures have been taken to stabilize the
overlook structures and eliminate hazards to
visitors, but the underlying problem has not yet
been identified or treated.
The north overlook plaza paving exhibits
conditions that are likely related to insufficient
underlying drainage. The concrete along the
walls is efflorescing and crumbling in places.
Nearly all the caulk in the expansion joints
at the base of the wall and the mortar joints
under the cap are failing. The joints where past
repairs meet the original concrete are not all
Figure 3.20. South overlook floodwall seen from Poplar Figure 3.22. North overlook wall - concrete spalling.
Street.
Figure 3.21. North overlook plaza.
Figure 3.23. North overlook plaza repaved area with
cracking indicates a continuing underlying problem.
3-10
/ EXISTING CONDITIONS
JEFFERSON NATIONAL EXPANSION MEMORIAL CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT
flush (see Figure 3.22).
A SikaTop coating has been applied to the
surface of the viewing platforms and their
stairs. This material is now cracking and
peeling off the platform at the north overlook.
There are two small drains in the corners of
the north viewing platform that appear to be
non-functioning. The concrete masonry unit
wall beneath the viewing platform contrasts
with the concrete used in the surrounding
features.
The north overlook staircase, leading from
the Memorial down to Leonor K. Sullivan
Boulevard, is in poor condition. The nearly
one-inch-thick Sika Top coating used to
repair the stairs is spalling and cracking, and
has fallen off in places (see Figure 3.24). Poor
drainage has led to deterioration; puddling and
water seepage were observed, and exposed
metal pins are visible along the edges of some
steps (see Figure 3.25).
Similar conditions were observed along the
south overlook staircase, although the damage
appeared to be less advanced than that of the
north overlook (see Figure 3.26). On the south
overlook, the paving appears to be separating
from its foundation where the wall begins on
the west side of the plaza.
Additionally, vertical cracking was observed
on the surface of the monolithic, curving
concrete floodwalls. Approximately mid-way
along the length of each wall, water seeping
through vertical cracks was observed, some
with unidentified residue and biological
growth, indicating ongoing moisture problems
(see Figure 3.27). Deterioration appears to
occur at the same level on both of the adjacent
staircases.
Railroad Open Cut Walls and Tunnels
The railroad open cut walls and tunnels were
constructed in 1959-1960. The railroad open
cuts are linear depressions flanked by retaining
walls with a curved top profile, flush with the
ground level and reflecting Saarinen's catenary
curve. The tunnels are covered with mounded
earth, planted with a groundcover of Bulgarian
ivy (Hedera helix 'Bulgaria') and wintercreeper
(Euonymus fortune! 'Coloratus'). The concrete
tunnel opening recalls the form of the Gateway
Arch, and has a board-formed pattern similar
to the overlooks (see Figure 3.28). Structural
analysis of the concrete tunnel structure was
not undertaken for this report. A cursory visual
inspection indicates that there has been some
spalling and cracking of both the walls and the
Figure 3.24. Damage along north overlook staircase. Figure 3.26. South overlook staircase.
Figure 3.25. Drainage problem at north overlook
staircase.
Figure 3.27. Weeping at base of south overlook
floodwall.
JEFFERSON NATIONAL EXPANSION MEMORIAL CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT
EXISTING CONDITIONS / 3-11
tunnels. In 2009 some staining and cracking
were observed on the concrete at the north
entrance to the north tunnel. The metal drain
pipes along the foot of the walls along the
north railroad open cut appeared damaged,
rusty, and degraded in many places.
Grand Staircase
The central portion of the grand staircase was
completed in 2003. The grand staircase steps
are in fair condition. The snow-melting mats
installed in the 1980s function intermittently;
typically every third step is active. The heat
mat covers about six feet of stair adjacent to
the north and south handrails. Some joints
have failed on the stairs, and in some places
there is evidence of shifting and cracking. The
covered trench drains appear to be func-
tioning. During flood events, in order to deter
visitors from attempting to access the river, the
grand staircase is cordoned off. During special
riverfront events, particularly for summer
concerts, the steps are used as seating to watch
performances given across Leonor K. Sullivan
Boulevard to the east on the city-owned
Riverfront Stage (see Figures 3.29 and 3.30).
North and South Service Areas
The ventilation system tower, while sunken
below the grade of the pathways, is highly
reflective and compromises views of the
landscape from the top of the Gateway Arch. It
contrasts with the brown-aggregate roof of the
adjacent generator building.
The shipping and receiving facility, inset in a
depression, is well hidden by mature plantings
and is largely unobtrusive in the landscape.
Retaining Walls
There are a number of poured-in-place
concrete retaining walls at the service areas,
all of which appear visually to be in good
condition, although a structural analysis was
not undertaken for this report. Railroad ties
along the western side of the north service area
appear to have moved from original placement
and there is some erosion. Along the south-
western perimeter of the Memorial a portion
of the berm has been cut away and inset with a
small concrete masonry unit retaining wall.
VEGETATION
Vegetation at the Memorial is comprised
entirely of designed ornamental and functional
plantings. The plants define a variety of spaces,
and frame or screen views. The vegetation
forms much of the spatial experience of the
site, from the dense plantings that enclose
walkways to the broad expanse of lawn under
the Gateway Arch. The single-species allees of
trees along the walks are character-defining
features distinguished by the close, rhythmic
spacing of trees. The uniform height of the
allees also creates an undulating line in the
landscape that is apparent from the entrances
to the Memorial. The form and color of the
vegetation creates and defines spaces with
varied degrees of transparency and texture.
Trees are generally encircled with mulch rings
Figure 3.29. The grand staircase from Leonor K. Sul-
livan Boulevard.
Figure 3.28. Railroad tunnel entrance from above.
Note catenary curve segment.
Figure 3.30. View of the river from the top of the
grand staircase.
3-12
/ EXISTING CONDITIONS
JEFFERSON NATIONAL EXPANSION MEMORIAL CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT
in the lawn areas and tree grates along the
walks. The Memorial grounds plantings are
discussed by form below.
Single-species Allees
The triple allee plantings of Rosehill ash trees
(Fraxinus americana 'Rosehill') are in fair
condition. These trees are all of approximately
uniform height, forming an enclosure over the
walks. They are planted partially within the
edges of the walks, 30 feet apart, and along the
outside of the walks in a third row, as well as
an additional row within the rest areas. The
rows are alternating, with the trees 16 to 20
feet on center within each line (see Figures
3.1 and 3.2). In 1996, 71 trees out of 985 were
in poor condition and required replacement,
and 11 were missing. For the most part, the
trees that were in poor condition in 1996 were
some of the oldest trees on the site (planted in
Phase 1, 1969-1973). These trees had reached
their maturity and even outlasted the average
lifespan of a typical urban tree. By 2009, 150
missing ash trees had not been replaced due
to concerns about their susceptibility to the
emerald ash borer. For more information
regarding the emerald ash borer, see the Pests
and Diseases section under Management
Concerns later in this chapter. The trees'
conditions are also affected by the grates which
surround them; see the discussion of tree
grates in the Small-scale Features section later
in this chapter for more information.
Baldcypress Circles
The baldcypress circles are located to the
northwest of the north pond and the southwest
of the south pond. Each circle is an enclosed
space punctured by an opening that frames
iconic views of the Gateway Arch and screens
Memorial Drive and the city. The baldcypress
circles were planted in 1980 and are in good
condition (see Figure 3.31). Additionally, there
are two small groves of baldcypresses inset into
spots along the curvilinear edge at the western
edge of both ponds, also in good condition.
The baldcypress trees located adjacent to
the grand staircase along Leonor K. Sullivan
Boulevard are also in good condition.
Pond Area Plantings
The trees on the slopes around the ponds
are planted in irregularly spaced groupings
of three to seven trees. They include several
species: bur oak (Quercus macrocarpa), swamp
white oak (Quercus bicolor), sugar maple (Acer
saccharum), red maple (Acer rubrum), linden
(Tilia americana), hawthorn (Crataegus sp.),
Kentucky coffeetree (Gymnocladus dioicus),
river birch (Betula nigra), honeylocust
(Gleditsia triacanthos), Bradford pear (Pyrus
calleryana) , Japanese pagodatree (Sophora
japonica), saucer magnolia (Magnolia x soulan-
giana), eastern redbud (Cercis canadensis), and
several varieties of crabapple (Malus sp.). The
trees are in fair to good condition.
Railroad Open Cut and Tunnel Plantings
Groundcovers over the railroad tunnels
include pyracantha (Pyracantha sp.), Bulgarian
ivy, and a few daylilies (Hemerocallis sp.)
(see Figure 3.32). The ivy is growing down
over some of the tunnel entrances, as well as
beginning to climb the trees. The slopes along
the west of the northern railroad open cuts are
planted in lawn, as are the eastern slopes of the
southern railroad open cut. The western slopes
of the southern railroad open cut are planted
with lindens and Japanese pagoda trees. These
plantings appeared to be in good condition.
Figure 3.31. Baldcypress circle.
Figure 3.32. Railroad tunnel plantings.
JEFFERSON NATIONAL EXPANSION MEMORIAL CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT
EXISTING CONDITIONS / 3-13
Plantings Along the East Side Slopes
The tree plantings on the slopes along the
eastern side of the Memorial grounds, above
Leonor K. Sullivan Boulevard, are in good
condition. In 2009, some dead or dying
Rosehill ash trees were noted alongside both
staircases leading to the overlooks, along with
immature trees. The wintercreeper ground-
cover is in fair condition. Wintercreeper is an
invasive species, and has been identified by the
Missouri Botanical Garden as one of the top
twenty species spreading into and crowding
out native plant areas (see Figure 3.33).
Service Area Plantings
A wide variety of trees is planted in these areas
including: hawthorn, maple, honeylocust,
linden, crabapple, oak, and redbud. The slopes
surrounding the north service area are planted
with wintercreeper, and in 2009 mugo pine
(Pinus mugo) shrubs were added along the
east side of the service road. The trees and
wintercreeper groundcover on the slopes
surrounding the south service area appeared
to be in good condition. A dense growth of
euonymus covers the chain link fence. Overall,
the service area plantings are in fair condition.
Street Edge Plantings
The trees along the Memorial's northwestern
edge consist of clumps of hawthorn, river
birch, magnolia (Magnolia sp.), and eastern
redbud. To the southwest, Rosehill ash trees
line the Memorial's perimeter. The plantings
around the Old Cathedral parking lot were
modified in 1994, and did not retain the same
number of trees or replace any of the Japanese
black pine (Pinus thunbergiana) from the
original planting. Several trees were removed
from this area in 1997 and again circa 2003
Figure 3.33. Wintercreeper groundcover.
with the installation of security cameras and
bollards.
The tree and shrub plantings along Washington
Avenue were installed in 2009 by Metro and
Laclede's Landing. These plantings include
London planetree (Platanus x acerfolia),
English oak (Quercus robur), European
hornbeam (Carpinus betulus), arrowwood
viburnum (Viburnum dentatum), ornamental
grasses, and daylilies, and are dissimilar to
those present in the Memorial landscape.
In 2009, several species of trees that were
new to the Memorial were planted along
Poplar Street in order to test their hardiness.
These include varieties of Norway Maple
(Acerplatanoid.es 'Emerald Queen') and
hackberry (Celtis occidentalis 'Prairie Pride')
along with two new species, Homestead elm
(Ulmus 'Homestead') and Arnold tulip poplar
(Liriodendron tulipifera 'Arnold'). Leonor K.
Sullivan Boulevard is planted on the west side
with baldcypress between the staircases.
To the north of the Old Cathedral, adjacent
to the entry to the Memorial, is a grove of red
maples. There are courtyards at each corner of
the Old Courthouse which have central beds
with small ornamental perennial plantings.
Parking Garage Plantings
The Washington Avenue edge of the parking
garage is planted with a narrow row of
ornamental grasses and daylilies, along with
English oak and arrowwood viburnum. On
the south and east sides of the garage are some
plantings of Bradford pears (Pyrus calleryana)
and crabapples.
Lawn areas
There are expanses of well-maintained turf
lawn at the Memorial in several areas, the
largest of which is along the primary axis. In
addition, the triangles and teardrops along the
walkway are planted with highly maintained
turf. The slopes of the railroad open cuts and
tunnels and the pond areas are planted with
less intensively maintained turf. The lawn areas
are resodded periodically and are in good
condition throughout the Memorial. In some
shaded, steep areas, erosion is occurring, and
grass does not establish well.
3-14
/ EXISTING CONDITIONS
JEFFERSON NATIONAL EXPANSION MEMORIAL CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT
Luther Ely Smith Square Plantings
Luther Ely Smith Square's slopes are planted
in lawn. Its concrete walks define three central
square planting beds with ornamental grasses
and perennials, bordered in lawn. The north
and south sides of the block are planted with
parallel rows of sweetgum (Liquidambar
styraciflua) and crabapple trees.
CIRCULATION
System of Walks within Memorial Grounds
There are approximately five miles of exposed
aggregate sidewalks on the interior of the
Memorial grounds. The interior walks, paved
in beige-brown exposed aggregate concrete
and lined by trees, are designed as a sequence
of spaces along the north-south axis of the
Memorial. The gradually varying width of the
walk is an important visual element. The align-
ment of the allees follows the curving form
of the walks. At the topographic high points
along this axis are triangles of lawn. When
viewed from the northwest plaza, for example,
the walk appears longer than it is. The 18-foot-
wide walks curve from the northwest and
southeast entrances and from the north and
south overlooks, and merge at the triangles and
expand to form the broad expanse of paving at
the rest areas, which range from 65 to 80 feet in
width. These are planted with another double
row of trees along the interior. The rest areas
give way to teardrop-shaped expanses of level,
tree-lined lawns. The walks expand as they
reach the Gateway Arch legs, where the paving
is approximately 250 feet wide.
The beige-brown exposed aggregate concrete
is laid with perpendicular expansion joints
occurring at alternating widths along the
walkways, with redwood spacers. The majority
of the aggregate paving and the redwood in
the expansion joints are in good condition.
Some are in fair condition: areas of damage or
deterioration are typically where larger trees
are present in or adjacent to the walks, or at
locations where drainage is poor, as well as
at irregular expansion joints and junctures of
paving. The existing circulation system is in fair
condition. In some places the redwood spacers
in the expansion joints have loosened or
deteriorated, and in others the wood spacers
have been replaced with thick bands of white
caulk, which is also beginning to deteriorate.
Portions of the sidewalk have shifted and
settled, requiring mud-jacking in the past
to level them. There are drainage problems
which appear to be causing paving failure,
particularly in areas of large paving expanses,
such as the northwest plaza and the north
overlook plaza. There are drainage problems
along the edges of walks, particularly in the
southwest. Locations where sidewalk slabs
have been replaced are sometimes evident, as
it is challenging to match aggregate. Uplifted
tree grates in the walks pose a tripping hazard
to pedestrians (see discussion of tree grates
in Small-scale Features section later in this
chapter).
Memorial Grounds Perimeter Walks
There are approximately 2.1 miles of concrete
sidewalks around the perimeter of the
Memorial grounds. Some of the perimeter
sidewalks along the west and north street
edges of the Memorial have the same color and
aggregate mixture used inside the grounds. The
perimeter sidewalk materials along Memorial
Drive change to running bond brick paving
alongside the Old Cathedral, and return to the
beige-brown aggregate with redwood joints
when the sidewalk meets the parking lot. All
of the perimeter sidewalks have been replaced
and repaired in patches, in some places with
a light grey concrete with a broom finish,
others with an unfinished taupe color, and still
others which have a lighter aggregate mixture
than most of the interior Memorial walks (see
Figure 3.34). Some cracking was visible on the
concrete perimeter walks. The beige-brown
aggregate sidewalk along Leonor K. Sullivan
Boulevard on the Memorial's eastern edge
does not have redwood spacers in the expan-
sion joints. An approximately 800-foot-long
Figure 3.34. Mismatched concrete paving materials
along the Memorial perimeter.
JEFFERSON NATIONAL EXPANSION MEMORIAL CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT
EXISTING CONDITIONS / 3-15
strip of cobbles lies between the curb and the
sidewalk to the north and south of the grand
staircase. The cobbles are interspersed with
baldcypress plantings. In one area, the cobbles
have been replaced with pressed concrete.
There has been some vehicular damage to the
curbing along this edge.
Southwest Entrance
The southwest entrance located adjacent to
several highway overpasses, is isolated from
the city by roadways. There is a triangular lawn
area set into beige-brown aggregate sidewalks.
Drainage problems exist along the northern
entry walk, with sediment covering some of
the paving (see Figure 3.35). Multiple paving
patterns and finishes occur where the perim-
eter sidewalk, interior sidewalk and bollards
meet (see Figure 3.34).
Northwest Plaza
The northwest plaza is an approximately
75-foot -wide expanse of beige-brown concrete
aggregate paving; though it is a main pedestrian
entrance to the Memorial, it is difficult to
access from the city, as it is surrounded by a
170-foot-wide band of busy roadways at an
intersection with multiple turning lanes and
highway entrance ramps. The plaza appears to
be in good condition.
Gateway Arch Entrance Ramps and Steps
The ramps at the Gateway Arch entrances
provide access into the underground visitor
center/Museum of Westward Expansion. The
concrete steps along both sides of the entrance
ramps were constructed in the early 1960s as
sculptural architectural features that could
be used as seatwalls. The steps emerge from
a slanted concrete wall and grow progres-
sively longer as they fade into the top of the
ramps." The entrances are beneath each leg
of the Gateway Arch, and the ramps surround
the base of each leg, affording visitors the
chance to touch the base of the structure. The
ramps are in good condition. However, they
do not meet the Architectural Barriers Act
Accessibility Standards (ABAAS) (see Other
Management Concerns section later in this
chapter for additional information regarding
accessibility). Additionally, safety problems
associated with drainage and slipping have
occurred at the ramps. To address this
problem, the granite pavers were replaced at
the north entrance ramp in 2005 and the south
entrance ramp in 2007. In winter storm events,
ice forms at the edge of the sections of the
ramp with warming mats. Drainage problems
were observed at the north leg of the Gateway
Arch, at the top of the ramp into the visitor
center, where the aggregate paving meets
the granite pavers. Additionally, some of the
regrouted joints between the granite pavers are
leaching (see Figures 3.36 and 3.37). They are in
fair condition, with visible layers of patching,
and repairs made with bright white caulk.
Figure 3.36. Gateway Arch ramp expansion joint at
granite pavers and aggregate paving.
Figure 3.35. Poor drainage on walk near southwest
entrance.
Figure 337. Gateway Arch ramp, with leaching from
grout between granite pavers visible.
3-16
/ EXISTING CONDITIONS
JEFFERSON NATIONAL EXPANSION MEMORIAL CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT
Old Cathedral Parking Lot
The Old Cathedral parking lot is level and
unobtrusive, with walls and berms around its
edges that partially screen it from view from
within the Memorial grounds. It is in good
condition. Adjacent to the Old Cathedral
parking lot is a bus drop-off located along
Memorial Drive.
Old Cathedral Sidewalk
The Old Cathedral sidewalk which leads into
the Memorial grounds from the parking lot
is in fair condition. It is an eight-foot-wide
exposed aggregate walk.
Old Courthouse Sidewalk
The sidewalk around the Old Courthouse
block is composed of standard red clay brick
pavers arranged in a herringbone pattern, and
is in good condition, although it differs greatly
from other paving types elsewhere at the
Memorial.
Interior Roads
The service roads leading from Memorial
Drive to the south service area, and from the
interior walk system to the north service area,
are in good condition. The concrete paving on
both is approximately 15 feet wide with six-inch
concrete curbing. In 2009, this service road
was paved with a segment of white broom
finish concrete, which is highly visible from
the top of the Gateway Arch. The park interior
roads are in good condition (see Figure 3.38).
Perimeter Roads
There are approximately 2.1 miles of paved
roads around the perimeter of the Memorial,
all of which are included within the Memorial
boundary. The portion of Washington Avenue
between Memorial Drive and Leonor K.
Sullivan Boulevard defines the Memorial's
northern edge. Washington Avenue is a linear
corridor defined to the north by the Eads
Bridge, to the south by the parking garage, and
to the east by views of the Mississippi River.
The constructed edge of Leonor K. Sullivan
Boulevard is defined by linear bands of
concrete aggregate sidewalk, asphalt roadway,
and cobblestone pavers (see Figures 3.39, 3.40,
and 3.41). The Memorial grounds are divided
by Memorial Drive and the below-grade I-70,
which run between Luther Ely Smith Square
Figure 3.38. Interior road to south service area.
Figure 3.39. Washington Avenue.
Figure 3.40. Memorial Drive.
Figure 3.41. Leonor K. Sullivan Boulevard.
JEFFERSON NATIONAL EXPANSION MEMORIAL CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT
EXISTING CONDITIONS / 3-17
and the main portion of the Memorial, and
form the Memorial's boundary between
Washington Avenue and Poplar Street. Fourth
Street bisects Luther Ely Smith Square and
the Old Courthouse, which are bounded by
Chestnut Street to the north and Market Street
to the south.
The curbs along the perimeter roads
(Memorial Drive, Washington Avenue,
Leonor K. Sullivan Boulevard, and Poplar
Street) appear to be in good condition, with
the exception of Poplar Street and Leonor K.
Sullivan Boulevard, which are in fair condition.
Memorial Drive underwent resurfacing
and repair in 2009. Concrete curb cuts and
diagonal herringbone pattern stamped asphalt
crosswalks were installed to improve access
between Luther Ely Smith Square and the
eastern portion of the Memorial (see Figure
34 2 )-
CONSTRUCTED WATER FEATURES
North and South Ponds
The curving line of the concrete edges of the
ponds complements the form of the Gateway
Arch reflected in the water. The sinuous
form of each pond's perimeter is such that its
entirety is not visible from any single point
along its outline, making each pond appear
larger than it is.
The concrete lining of both ponds is
undergoing repair in 2010. Additionally,
expansion joints are being re-caulked, and
the drain valves replaced. The visible concrete
edges of both ponds appear to be in good
condition. The ponds do not have aeration
or filtration systems to recirculate the water
and prevent the growth of algae. There are
significant algae blooms in the south pond
that create a potential bacteria source. Little
algae was observed in the north pond in 2009,
although the water appeared stagnant.
SMALL-SCALE FEATURES
Benches
The concrete benches at the Memorial are a
minimalist design composed of a thick slab
of concrete 10 feet long and two to three feet
wide, set on two concrete base blocks at a
height of one foot four inches (see Figure 3.43).
The existing concrete benches are in good
condition. The older benches were installed
in 1971 and 1979. There are now more than 70
concrete benches of this type; many have been
added since 1996. Benches have been relocated
to function as security barriers around the
base of the Gateway Arch, as well as along the
north triangle near the parking garage. Around
the Gateway Arch they are placed at regular
four-foot intervals, while the benches along
the triangle are irregularly spaced. There are
benches along both sides of the north and
south rest areas.
The benches in the Old Cathedral parking lot
are chamfered-edge concrete, while those in
Luther Ely Smith Square are of dark- colored
recycled-plastic, with backs.
Walls
The cut limestone and concrete block walls
surrounding the Old Cathedral and its parking
lot were installed in 1994.
Lighting
The lighting along the walkways is in fair
condition, in the form of 12-foot-tall brown
metal posts topped by 21-inch-diameter glass
Figure 3.42. Curb cuts along Memorial Drive.
Figure 3.43. Typical concrete bench.
3-18
/ EXISTING CONDITIONS
JEFFERSON NATIONAL EXPANSION MEMORIAL CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT
globe lanterns. The lights are centrally located
within the sidewalks along the approaches from
the northwest plaza and the southwest entrance,
then are staggered on either side of each walk
where it curves. Most of the lighting around
the perimeter roads consists of beige-brown
concrete posts with standard "cobrahead" type
streetlight luminaires.
Gateway Arch Lighting
Although one of the earliest sketches of the
Gateway Arch by Saarinen's office in 1948
showed the structure lit by floodlights, the
gleaming, reflective surface of the stainless steel
made this difficult to implement. Intensive tests
performed between 1965 and 1969 by several
major companies all failed to adequately illumi-
nate the Gateway Arch. Eventually, a successful
solution to the lighting problemwas found using
the improved lights available in 2001. Floodlights
are in four 8-foot-deep concrete vaults covered
with grills that are set flush with the ground.
They shine directly upward to illuminate the
bottom of the Gateway Arch. The light vaults,
although large, are not obtrusive as they are set
belowground within the large lawn area.
Handrails and Guardrails
Handrails and guardrails at the Gateway Arch
entrance ramps, the overlooks, and the grand
staircase are generally not in keeping with the
design aesthetic found throughout the rest of
the Memorial. At the entrance ramps, rust spots
were observed where the brown metal railings
meet the steps on either side of the entrance
(see Figure 3.44). The low, black-painted
metal handrails along the steps to the overlook
viewing platforms, and the guardrails along
their edge, have approximately 10-inch-wide
openings between uprights. These railings do
not appear to meet contemporary safety codes;
there is some rust staining where the railings
anchor to the steps. The metal guardrails along
the north and south ends of the grand staircase,
inset into beige-brown concrete aggregate cheek
walls, are unobtrusive.
Trash Receptacles
There are currently about 85 exposed aggregate
concrete containers with brown plastic lids
located thorughout the Memorial grounds.
The lids are replaced every 3-4 years. The trash
receptacles are, in general, in fair condition.
Drinking Fountains
Drinking fountains of exposed aggregate
concrete are located east of the north and
south legs of the Gateway Arch, at each rest
area, and at the north and south overlooks.
All of these appear to have been replaced with
barrier-free accessible concrete aggregate
drinking fountains, with the exception of one
fountain at the south overlook. They appear to
be in good condition. One drinking fountain is
missing at the south rest area.
Kiosk
The information kiosk is in good condition.
It was constructed in 1986 just southeast of
the parking garage. The kiosk is a three-sided
precast beige-brown aggregate concrete
structure, with a bronze plaque (see Figure
3.45). It has a four-foot-square information
board for posting events, operating times and
procedures.
Entrance Signs
There are 12 seven-foot by three-foot rectan-
gular entrance signs, one at each entrance to
the Memorial. The signs are wood, painted
grey with the NPS arrowhead, and identify the
Memorial as a National Park site. The entrance
signs are in fair condition (see Figure 3.46).
Wayfinding
The wayfinding signage at the northwest
plaza is of varying materials, types, sizes,
colors, and lettering. There are multiple,
competing parking signs placed here. There
is a large amount of signage in the parking
garage directing visitors to the Gateway Arch.
Much of the rest of the grounds do not have
wayfinding signage, in part due to the Modern
landscape design which leads visitors to the
Gateway Arch. A signage plan is currently
Figure 3.44. Handrails and concrete damage at the
steps alongside the Gateway Arch entrance ramps.
JEFFERSON NATIONAL EXPANSION MEMORIAL CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT
EXISTING CONDITIONS / 3-19
being created and new signs may soon be
implemented throughout the Memorial
grounds.
Security Cameras
Closed-circuit television cameras were
installed in 1997 as part of a federal counter-
terrorism program. These are located
throughout the Memorial landscape, some
in relatively unobtrusive spots, while others
conflict with existing trees or stand within the
views to the Gateway Arch along the walks.
Chain-Link Fences
The galvanized chain-link fences surrounding
the railroad open cuts and along the tops of the
tunnel entrances are in good condition, and
their dark green plastic coating makes them
relatively unobtrusive. There is also chain-link
fencing at the maintenance facility, north
and south service areas, and parking garage,
ranging from good to poor condition.
Figure 3.45. Information kiosk.
Figure 3.46. Entrance sign.
Bollards
Grey metal bollards installed circa 2003 line
Memorial Drive's eastern perimeter, curving
to enter the Memorial at the northwest plaza,
the southeast entrance, and extending to the
Old Cathedral's northern wall. The one-foot-
diameter bollards, spaced five feet on center,
create a strong visual line in the landscape.
Their installation was highly contraversial due
to their intrusive appearance along the visually
prominent street edges of the Memorial.
The bollards are set into a 2-foot-wide strip of
light- colored concrete, which contrasts with
the lawn areas and exposed aggregate walks
where it enters the Memorial (see Figure 3.47).
The bollards are retractable at the Memorial
entrances.
Tree Grates
The cast-iron tree grates surrounding the
Rosehill ash trees within and along the walks
are in fair to poor condition (see Figure 3.48).
The grates are difficult to maintain level due to
improper installation (each rests on multiple
slabs of concrete and/or on soil). The centers
of the grates are routinely cut to accommodate
tree growth. The grates not only require
intensive maintenance, but their condition also
presents a tripping hazard to pedestrians (see
Figure 3.48). The tree grates are cut to different
degrees, rusted, and roughly one-quarter are
uplifted. More than half of the tree grates on
the path between the northwest plaza and
the north triangle are damaged or missing. In
some places the grates have become filled in
with sediment, which has then spread across
adjacent paving. Some trees have been girdled
by the grates. The grates in many cases rest
directly on top of the soil and root flares,
causing compaction and poor drainage around
the root system. Siltation and erosion exist in
places where the tree grates meet the grass.
The grates are of a custom dimension, and
therefore costly to replace.
Irrigation System
The irrigation at the Memorial is organized
in zones that are quite large by industry
standards. The majority of the approximately
1,250 irrigation heads are Toro Model 640, a
heavy-duty commercial head. The watering
arc is not adjustable. Some of the sprinklers
3-20
/ EXISTING CONDITIONS
JEFFERSON NATIONAL EXPANSION MEMORIAL CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT
are currently overwatering on the sidewalks;
in other areas, coverage is lacking. Some of the
sprinkler heads are placed high above ground
level and are visually prominent.
Joseph Pulitzer Plaque
The Joseph Pulitzer plaque is in good condi-
tion. It is a bronze plaque located in the
sidewalk at the east entrance of the Old
Courthouse. The plaque measures 28 by 21
inches and commemorates the location where
Joseph Pulitzer bought the St. Louis Dispatch
on December 9, 1878.
Saarinen Memorial Plaque
The Saarinen memorial plaque has been
removed and is currently in storage. The
bronze, 22-by-28-inch plaque was mounted
on a 24 by 29 % inch stone base, pitched
45 degrees. The plaque was aligned on the
Memorial's central axis, along the west side-
walk curb of Leonor K. Sullivan Boulevard, an
area susceptible to flooding.
Luther Ely Smith Memorial Marker
The Luther Ely Smith memorial marker is in
good condition. It is a granite polished marker
with an angled face and pitch-face base. It
measures two feet 16 inches by three feet
and is located on the west side of Luther Ely
Smith Square. The marker, dedicated in 1985,
commemorates the St. Louis lawyer who first
proposed a monument on the riverfront in
1933-
Lewis and Clark Plaques
The plaques commemorate the efforts of
Lewis and Clark and their expedition. They are
bronze plaques measuring 18 l A by 16 % inches.
The Meriwether Lewis plaque is mounted
on the south overlook wall and the William
Clark plaque is mounted on the west side of
the north overlook wall. The Lewis and Clark
plaques are in good condition, but the patina
from both plaques is staining the concrete
walls below them.
Flood of 1993 Plaques
The plaques marking the height of the 1993
floodwaters are in good condition. The plaques
are mounted on the north and south walls of
the grand staircase at the elevation where the
floodwaters of the 1993 flood began to recede.
The Mississippi River reached 49.58 feet, the
highest level ever recorded in the City of St.
Louis. The markers are bronze and measure 16
by io l A inches.
American Society of Civil Engineers Plaque
Located on the wall above the south entrance
to the underground visitor center, this plaque
was awarded by the American Society of Civil
Engineers for "outstanding civil engineering
achievement" in 1967. The plaque is bronze and
measures approximately two feet by 11 inches.
The Gateway Arch Plaque
Located above the north entrance to the
underground visitor center, the plaque was
mounted to commemorate President Lyndon
B. Johnson's 1968 dedication of the Gateway
Arch to the people of the United States. 12 The
bronze plaque measures approximately two
feet by one foot eight inches.
The Old Courthouse Plaque
This plaque commemorates the landmark 1846
lawsuit brought by Dred and Harriet Scott,
enslaved people who sued for their freedom.
While they won their case in St. Louis, this suit
ultimately went before the U.S. Supreme Court
Figure 3.47. Bollards.
Figure 3.48. Tree grate.
JEFFERSON NATIONAL EXPANSION MEMORIAL CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT
EXISTING CONDITIONS / 3-21
which reversed the lower court's decision,
and denied citizenship to people of African
ancestry. This decision was a contributing
factor to the Civil War. Located on the west
side of the Old Courthouse fence, the plaque is
in good condition.
OTHER MANAGEMENT CONCERNS
Plant Failures and Substitutions
Since the completion of the second phase of
planting in 1981, there have been incremental
diversions from the intended planting concept.
Shrub and tree replacement at the Memorial
has been based upon the 1981 as-built planting
plan by the National Park Service. The original
installation of the plants, as noted in Chapter
2, involved a smaller number of plants and
various plant substitutions that were not
entirely in keeping with Kiley's approved 1964
planting plan. Tree species substitutions and
other alterations have occurred as the original
plantings failed to establish in some areas, or
particular species in the original planting were
determined to not perform well in the land-
scape conditions at the Memorial. Some of the
plantings have been tree-for-tree substitutions
of one species with another; other new species
have been introduced in small numbers to
test their hardiness for potential future use. In
many cases the trees were selected not specifi-
cally with design form or intent in mind, but
rather due to being a similar variety or species
to an exsiting tree in the Memorial, or for their
hardiness.
Over time, there have been several contracts
for replacements of trees and shrubs. The
first such contract occurred around 1983
when Regency Landscaping was contracted
to replace the failing Bulgarian ivy on the
west side of the railroad tunnels with sod.' 3
According to Mike Mayberry of Regency
Landscaping, the ivy was not properly
maintained and weeds overtook it, eventually
requiring its removal. In 2009, there was sod
on the slopes adjacent to the railroad cuts and
ivy growing over the north tunnel.
In September 1985, Treeland Nurseries
was awarded a contract to replace shrubs
around the railroad tunnels and at the service
entrances. Species replaced included fragrant
sumac (Rhus aromatica), pyracantha 'Lalandei'
(Pyracantha coccinea 'Lalandei'), and mugo
pine. These were in-kind replacements of
shrubs planted in the early 1980s.
Another contract was awarded to Treeland
Nurseries in May 1986, for the replacement of
178 dead trees. At this time it was evident that
certain species did not perform well on the
Memorial grounds under existing conditions.
For example, in 1984, the grounds crew began
a large-scale substitution of poorly performing
flowering dogwood (Cornus florida) with
snowdrift crabapple (Malusx 'Snowdrift').
This substitution continued under the 1986
Treeland Nurseries contract.
Between 1986 and 1995, the NPS grounds
maintenance division continued to have
difficulties with certain tree species. In
particular, the following tree species were not
performing well on the Memorial grounds:
flowering dogwood, sugar maple, Bradford
pear, and littleleaf linden (Tilia cordata). As
these species began to decline, they were
replaced by snowdrift crabapple, sugar
hackberry (Celtis laevigata), redspire pear
(Pyrus calleryana 'Redspire'), and river birch
respectively. Japanese black pine also has not
performed well at the Memorial, however
a suitable replacement species was not
identified.
The flood of 1993 decimated the plantings
around the railroad tunnels and required
the replacement of many trees and shrubs.
An attempt was made to replant these areas
with species native to wetland areas so that
they would have a better chance of survival
in future floods. Species introduced on the
riverfront included: river birch, swamp white
oak, black gum (Nyssa sylvatica), and sweetbay
magnolia (Magnolia virginiana). Some of these
species were introduced on an experimental
basis and were monitored for adaptability
to the site conditions. Shrubs were replaced
with pyracantha 'Gnome' (a smaller variety
than 'Lelandii'), daylilies, and fothergilla
(Fothergilla gardenii). At this time, fragrant
sumac (Rhus aromatica), which was included
in the implemented planting plan, was replaced
by 'Brilliantissima' chokeberry (Aronia
arbutifolia 'Brilliantissima'), 'Sparkleberry'
and 'Apollo' (male) winterberry (Ilex
3-22
/ EXISTING CONDITIONS
JEFFERSON NATIONAL EXPANSION MEMORIAL CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT
verticillata 'Sparkleberry' and 'Apollo'), and
summersweet clethra (Clethra alnifolia).
By 1995, there were 11 more canopy tree species
on the site than were originally planted in
1981, including five new flowering tree species;
and two new shrubs and groundcovers. In
2009, there were 33 species of trees in the
main portion of the Memorial, in contrast to
the 13 proposed by Kiley. It should be noted,
however, that some of these new species
are very few in number. Past management
practices at the Memorial promoted
experimentation with new species to address
pest susceptibility and disease problems. Some
of these species were similar in form and
habit to those selected by Kiley. For example,
Kiley proposed the use of hackberry (Celtis
occidentalis) and white oak (Quercus alba),
which were substituted with sugar hackberry
and swamp white oak.
Trees planted within the concrete walkways
appear to have problems related to insufficient
tree pits. When repairs have been made to the
sidewalks, urban fill (i.e. bricks) have been
discovered in the soil surrounding trees. New
construction projects (such as the installation
of bollards) have had a detrimental effect on
vegetation at the Memorial; tree roots have
been severed by trenching, and construction
equipment has been driven over root flares.
By October 2009, the Rosehill ash allees were
missing 150 trees. The last time trees were
replaced was in 2004.
Pests and Diseases
Many experts have been consulted since
1977 regarding plant health on the Memorial
grounds. Much attention was given to the
Rosehill ash single-species planting, but the
health of other species was a concern as well.
Experts contacted included plant pathologists,
tree pathologists, and most recently a research
agronomist specializing in soil science. 14 Their
findings between 1977 and 1996 are summa-
rized below.
From the late 1970s until the mid-1980s
the decline and general poor health of the
Rosehill ash trees was a concern. This was
attributed to several possible causes including
the ash borer, cytospora canker, and the
poor growing conditions of an urban site.
Influences such as being planted in fill material,
and urban pollution have added stress to
the trees and therefore made them weaker
and more susceptible to pests and disease.
Sometimes the ash planting is referred to as a
"monoculture" (not an ecologically accurate
term, as it is planted among other species),
which are considered ecologically unstable.
The general consensus of horticulturists has
been to replace the dead or diseased trees with
alternate species to increase plant diversity,
thereby eliminating some inherent problems.
However, in light of the importance that the
uniform character of the allees plays in the
design concept of the Memorial, replacing the
Rosehill ash trees with a variety of species has
not been considered a viable option.
Once the causes of decline were identified
and recommendations for pest control were
implemented, the condition of the trees began
to improve. By 1992, entomologist Dr. David
Nielsen visited the park and was generally
impressed with the condition of the Rosehill
ash planting.' 5 He suggested general plant
management techniques such as aeration to
combat soil compaction, mulching beneath
trees, and continuing ash borer monitoring
and the Dursban spray program. Today, it is
recognized that most Rosehill ash decline at
the Memorial is attributed to the age of the
plants.' 6 In 2009, the National Park Service was
in the process of developing a replacement
strategy for the Rosehill ash.
In 1995, soil scientist James Patterson visited
the park and assessed some of the plant
health problems from a soils standpoint.' 7 In
his opinion, the soil conditions adjacent to
the sidewalks and in the tree pits were less
than adequate for optimum plant growth. In
general, the Rosehill ash suffered because they
did not have ample room for root growth and
many planting pits had poor drainage. Other
areas of the Memorial grounds that were
investigated also were found to have drainage
problems.
Mr. Patterson outlined several important
considerations in his report: first, there is a
drainage problem. The park was built on fill
material and therefore the soil conditions
for plant growth are challenging. There is
JEFFERSON NATIONAL EXPANSION MEMORIAL CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT
EXISTING CONDITIONS / 3-23
a need for a rigorous soil amendment and
aeration program. He also recommended
creating mounds of improved soil where there
are particularly wet conditions. And finally,
he recommended replacing certain species
with other species more tolerant of the wet
conditions. 18
By 2009, 150 missing ash trees in the allees
had not been replaced due to the threat of the
emerald ash borer. The emerald ash borer is an
invasive beetle which feeds exclusively on ash
trees and has no predators in North America.
Infestations of the emerald ash borer typically
wipe out stands of ash within a few years.
The Memorial participated in a Bacterial Leaf
Scorch (BLS) study in 2008 and 2009. Bacterial
leaf scorch was been confirmed on rosehill ash
trees, and monitoring is ongoing.
Vandalism and Visitor Impact
Due to its urban location and heavy use, the
Memorial grounds suffer from recurring
vandalism. Proximity to downtown sporting
events, riverboat gambling, and use of the
Memorial grounds for major events contribute
to this problem. The most frequent damage
occurs to trees and trash receptacles. On
occasion, branches are broken and initials
are carved in tree bark. The trash receptacles,
concrete walls, and concrete benches are occa-
sionally spray-painted with graffiti. The NPS
Protection Division combats this vandalism on
a case-by-case basis.
Visitor impact is highest on the Memorial
grounds during major events, in particular
the Fair St. Louis, and results in damaged or
destroyed trees, compacted soil, damaged turf,
and weakened sidewalks. In addition, vehicles
occasionally damage trees by traversing their
root systems.
Impacts From Construction Projects
Construction projects occurring at the
Memorial, such as the recent installation
of bollards, sometimes have a deleterious
impact on the landscape. During construction
and repair projects, tree roots are damaged
during excavation, root flares are damaged
by construction equipment, and turf is
compacted.
Accessibility
Jefferson National Expansion Memorial has
implemented many measures to ensure that the
Memorial and its programs meet accessibility
standards. Although many of the improve-
ments are related to providing barrier-free
accessible experiences through self-activated
video programs, large-print brochures, TDD
equipment for the deaf, and wheelchairs on
request, some physical changes have been
made as well.
The most extensive construction project
to accommodate barrier-free access was
completed in 1994, when the Old Cathedral
parking lot was redesigned and reconstructed
to provide a bus pull-off along Memorial Drive.
This enables drivers to drop off or pick up their
parties close to the Gateway Arch's south leg
near the Old Cathedral. Accessible parking for
visitors is also provided at the parking garage,
which is 1,100 feet north of the nearest visitor
center entrance. The most common visitor
complaint about accessibility at the Memorial
is the distance between the parking garage and
the Gateway Arch.
A wheelchair lift was installed in the southwest
courtyard of the Old Courthouse in 2007. This
is the only courtyard that may be accessed by
the public.
The visitor center is accessed via ramps with
an eight percent grade at both the south
and north legs. Although the ramps meet
the Architectural Barriers Act Accessibility
Standard (ABAAS) requirements for steepness
of grade, they exceed the acceptable length. 19
In addition, physically challenged visitors
who do not have a problem conquering the
ramps may have difficulty opening the heavy
glass doors once they reach the visitor center
entrances.
Erosion and Drainage
The irrigation design has numerous conflicts
with the planting plan and did not account for
the walkways. The maintenance staff has had
to accommodate these conflicts retroactively.
Drainage is poor in many parts of the
Memorial, in particular along the southwest
walkway. Drains were added to this area but
3-24
/ EXISTING CONDITIONS
JEFFERSON NATIONAL EXPANSION MEMORIAL CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT
have failed. There are drainage problems which
appear to be causing chronic paving failure,
particularly at large paving expanses, such as
the northwest plaza and the plaza on the north
overlook (see Figures 3.49 and 3.50.).
There are erosion problems on many of the
steepest slopes at the Memorial, including the
slopes southeast of the south pond, northeast
of the north pond, southwest of the HVAC/
generator area, and those alongside the
railroad open cuts (see Figure 3.51). In some
eroded areas, repeated filling with new soil has
failed to solve the problem.
Figure 3.49. Representative drainage problem along
walks.
Figure 3.50. Representative drainage problem along walks.
Figure 3.51. Erosion along slopes above the south pond.
JEFFERSON NATIONAL EXPANSION MEMORIAL CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT
EXISTING CONDITIONS / 3-25
Endnotes
1. See Appendix B for samples of inspection
sheets used for the 1995 assessment.
2. Robert R. Page et al, A Guide to Cultural
Landscape Reports: Contents, Process, and
Techniques (Washington, DC: National
Park Service, 1998).
3. James E. O'Donnell, ed., St. Louis
Currents: The community and its resources.
(St. Louis: Leadership Center of Greater
St. Louis, 1992).
4. "What's in St. Louis: The Region at a
Glance." St. Louis Commerce Magazine,
March 2009. Accessed via internet: http://
www.stlcommercemagazine.com/archives/
march2009/region.pdf).
5. See the Memorial Drive Traffic Study
(National Park Service, 2008) for a more
detailed description of the roadway
context surrounding the Memorial.
6. An agreement with the Pastor of the
Old Cathedral provides for the use of 15
parking spaces in the lot by Memorial
employees. These spaces are not available
for their use during ceremonies and
services at the church.
7. Track Relocation Agreement, June 2, 1958
(Copy on file in JNEM Archives, Record
Unit 104, Box 19, Folder 1).
8. The Project Management Implementation
System (PMIS) is a service-wide database
used to track and implement projects.
9. Outlines of Park Requirements, package
802, October 25, 1984. A copy of the OPR
can be found in the Facility Manager's
Office, JNEM.
10. Moore, Urban Innovations and Practical
Partnerships, 89-97, provides a detailed
description of the water intrusion problem
and the structural problems identified at
the visitor center.
11. Bob Burley, Architect, oral history
interview by Gina Bellavia and Gregg
Bleam, July 27, 1995 (Copy on file in the
JNEM Archives). Burley worked for Eero
Saarinen and Associates from 1956 to 1963.
He was personally responsible for the
design of the entrances to the Gateway
Arch and told Gina Bellavia that these
were meant to be architectural features.
The tread-riser relationship is not
standard, indicating that the "steps" were
meant for sitting or viewing rather than
walking.
12. President Johnson did not visit the
Gateway Arch in 1968, but his Vice
President, Hubert Humphrey, attended
the ceremony and spoke. President
Johnson visited the site in 1964.
13. Gina Bellavia, oral history interview with
Mike Mayberry of Regency Landscaping
(formerly with Shelton and Sons
Landscaping), February 21, 1995. Copy of
notes on file in JNEM Archives.
14. The following experts have consulted
on the health of the plants on the
Memorial grounds: James B. Hanson,
U.S. Department of Agriculture, National
Forest Service; Dr. David G. Nielsen, Ohio
Agricultural Research and Development
Center, Department of Entomology;
James L. Sherald, U.S. Department of the
Interior, National Park Service.
15. Dr. David G. Nielsen to Jim Jacobs,
November 3, 1992. Copy on file in JNEM
Grounds Maintenance files.
16. For a more comprehensive discussion
of some of the problems the grounds
maintenance division was faced with
between 1981 and 1991, see Moore, Urban
Innovations and Practical Partnerships, 119-
125.
17. James Patterson to Gary Easton,
September 25, 1995. Copy on file in JNEM
Archives.
18. Ibid.
3-26
/ EXISTING CONDITIONS
JEFFERSON NATIONAL EXPANSION MEMORIAL CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT
19. The ADA requires a maximum of eight
percent slope with at least five-foot
landings at 30-foot intervals. The problem
with the existing ramps at the Gateway
Arch is that there are no landings and the
distance from the top of the ramp to the
entrance doors is 32 feet. Also of note, the
Uniform Federal Accessibility Standards
suggest that eight percent ramps are
only acceptable if they are enclosed and
protected. The ramps are only enclosed
and protected for less than half their
length. The Memorial generally does not
receive complaints about the slope of
the ramps but rather, the length of the
walks from the parking garage and the
entrance doors themselves, which are not
automated.
JEFFERSON NATIONAL EXPANSION MEMORIAL CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT
EXISTING CONDITIONS / 3-27
THIS PAGE LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK
JEFFERSON NATIONAL EXPANSION MEMORIAL CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT
Maintenance facility -
Legend
- — — - Memorial boundary
W Views
Grass
Baldcypress circle
f vLeonor K. Sullivan Boulevar
/ — \~~
/ \ Rest area
/ \
z \ Single-species allees
/ \
/ v System of pedestrian walks
JEFFERSON NATIONAL EXPANSION MEMORIAL: EXISTING CONDITIONS PLAN SHOWING CONTRIBUTING LANDSCAPE FEATURES
Figure 3.52. Existing conditions. (AECOM, 2010)
JEFFERSON NATIONAL EXPANSION MEMORIAL CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT
EXISTING CONDITIONS / 3-29
THIS PAGE LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK
JEFFERSON NATIONAL EXPANSION MEMORIAL CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT
Analysis and Evaluation
This chapter contains three parts: (1) the
statement of significance and explanation
of the period of significance for Jefferson
National Expansion Memorial; (2) an analysis
of character-defining features, including their
contribution to the significance of the land-
scape; and (3) an assessment of the integrity of
the property.
SIGNIFICANCE EVALUATION
STATEMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE
According to the Secretary of the Interior, a
property is significant if it represents part of
"the history, architecture, archeology, engi-
neering, or culture of a community, state, or
nation." 1 A property can achieve significance
if it meets one or more of the following four
criteria:
A - it has association with historic events,
activities, or patterns;
B - it has association with important persons;
C - it has a distinctive physical characteristics
of design, construction, or form; or
D - it has the potential to yield important
information. 1
That the Memorial is a highly significant work
of American design and engineering under
Criterion C is not disputed. However, evalua-
tion of the Memorial landscape's significance
remains challenging for several reasons. First,
it was listed in the National Register of Historic
Places and designated a National Historic
Landmark prior to its complete construction.
Additionally, sites are not usually considered
for inclusion in the National Register of
Historic Places if they are less than 50 years of
age. The Memorial was listed less than 30 years
after the concept was initiated through the
1947 design competition; construction did not
begin until 1958, and elements of the landscape
design were still being implemented as recently
as 2003.
According to the National Register Criteria
for Evaluation, a property may have achieved
significance within the last 50 years only
if it is of exceptional importance. 3 The
National Register recognizes that properties
representing unusual contributions to the
development of American history, architecture,
archeology, engineering, and culture may
become significant before the customary
"passage of time" necessary to apply the adjec-
tive "historic." Jefferson National Expansion
Memorial is considered to have exceptional
importance based on the transcendent nature
of its architecture and engineering.
The Memorial also derives national signifi-
cance under National Register Criterion A
because of its memorialization of the role of
Thomas Jefferson and others responsible for
the nation's territorial expansion to the West. 4
The Memorial was appropriately established
in St. Louis, Missouri, the embarkation point
and economic hub of the westward movement
in the nineteenth century. The original primary
significance of this site was its identification
with the people, commerce, and buildings
associated with the expansion of the United
States. This aspect of significance, while
not developed in the scope of this report,
is also subject to National Register Criteria
Consideration F which addresses significance
of properties that are primarily commemora-
tive in their intent.
4.0
JEFFERSON NATIONAL EXPANSION MEMORIAL CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT
ANALYSIS AND EVALUATION / 4-1
Jefferson National Expansion Memorial is
significant under National Register Criterion
C as the work of a master architect, Eero
Saarinen, and master landscape architect, Dan
Kiley; and as an example of architectural and
landscape architectural design embodying
the principles of Modernism. Because the
Gateway Arch is a unique and extraordinary
structure, its significance under Criterion C
has perhaps overshadowed its significance for
commemoration.
Modernism is a design movement that has
recently become a focus of preservation efforts
as its architectural and landscape architectural
landmarks — particularly those of the post-
World War II era — begin to face demolition
and deterioration. Modernism is characterized
by an embrace of abstraction, a questioning
of tried-and-true forms and formalities, and a
willingness to experiment with altogether new
forms and materials. New technologies had,
in the eyes of Modernist designers, rendered
old styles and ways of building obsolete.
Pure geometries and monolithic materials
characterizing this style lacked the traditional
details and decorative motifs of earlier styles.
Jefferson National Expansion Memorial is
considered one of the best and most significant
built examples of Modern design in the United
States.
The Gateway Arch is well known as an
extraordinary structure, a soaring emblem,
part sculpture and part memorial, embodying
the principles of Modernism as executed by
one of its most recognized masters, architect
Eero Saarinen. The landscape — though not
initially afforded the same recognition — is the
inextricable connection between the Gateway
Arch and its setting.
The design for the landscape surrounding the
Gateway Arch is the result of a close collabora-
tion between Saarinen and landscape architect
Dan Kiley. The contributions of architects such
as Saarinen have been extensively studied, yet
the profession of landscape architecture has
not been so widely acknowledged. In May
1995, this trend changed when Dan Kiley was
awarded the American Academy of Arts and
Letters Arnold W. Brunner architecture prize. 5
Kiley was the first landscape architect ever
so honored. This demonstrates the growing
recognition of the profession of landscape
architecture as well as the importance of Kiley
in the profession, specifically the Modern
movement.
Jefferson National Expansion Memorial is a
particularly important project in Kiley's career
for two reasons. First, his participation and
success in the Memorial project, the first major
architectural competition in the United States
after World War II, established his reputa-
tion. Second, it continued Kiley's long-term
personal and professional relationship with
Eero Saarinen. The two continued to work
together on various projects for 14 years until
Saarinen's untimely death.
Together, the architecture and landscape
architecture of the Memorial embody the
design philosophy of both Eero Saarinen and
Dan Kiley. Eero Saarinen considered the entire
site and carefully designed the landform to
afford specific views of the Gateway Arch and
Old Courthouse and to subtly disguise views
of the service entrance, maintenance facility,
and railroad tracks. Kiley enhanced his design
by adding plants that would define vistas of
the Gateway Arch and accentuate its simple
magnificence. His use of a single tree species
spaced closely together in allees is a Kiley
signature. The simplicity of his design comple-
ments the simplicity of the Gateway Arch.
Design Intent
Design intent in the context of a Modern
designed landscape or structure has been
defined and elaborated upon by Theodore
H. M. Prudon, a preservation architect, in his
2008 text, Preservation of Modern Architecture:
"Continuity and the ability to recognize orig-
inal design intent is critical to the preservation
of modern architecture. Original design intent
is the visual and conceptual expression of the
designer's creativity and therefore informs
every aspect of both the building and its
construction. This acceptance of and greater
reliance on the intangible (and therefore the
lesser reliance on material expression) diverges
from conventional preservation practices in
the U.S. It requires both a broader definition
of authenticity and a less literal approach to
material preservation. Whereas in traditional
preservation practice the original material and
4-2 / ANALYSIS AND EVALUATION
JEFFERSON NATIONAL EXPANSION MEMORIAL CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT
its presence is considered the most authentic
and thus what needs to be preserved, in the
preservation of modern architecture there is
likely to be a combination of both design intent
and material authenticity with, probably, a
somewhat greater priority placed on the design
itself." 6
Identifying a framework for how design intent
relates to the landscape is complex in the case
of a project such as the Memorial. The signifi-
cance of the landscape is dependent upon its
ability to convey the character intended by
the master designers. This question of design
intent is further complicated by the landscape
design having been realized over decades of
construction outside the direct control of the
original designers, and including numerous
incremental design iterations and changes in its
execution.
The intent of the designers is encapsulated in
part by Saarinen's words about the Memorial
in 1959:
"All the lines of the site plan, including the
paths and roads, and even the railroad tunnels,
have been brought into the same family of
curves to which the great arch itself belongs.
More and more I believe that all parts of an
architectural composition must be parts of the
same form-world." 7
Original design intent is a key aspect of
significance for the Memorial, and thus a
factor in the determining which landscape
features do or do not contribute to its signifi-
cance. Design intent at the Jefferson National
Expansion Memorial is expressed through the
built form as it exists today, and also through
the designers' surviving drawings, written and
verbal communications.
Some considerations used in evaluating the
closeness of existing built features on the
Memorial grounds to the Saarinen/Kiley
design intent are as follows.
1. Features that exist today as they were fully
developed within the Saarinen/Kiley design,
documented in their final master plan as
approved by the National Park Service in
1964, are the most significant features at the
Memorial and convey most strongly the
original design intent. Landscape features
such as the Gateway Arch, north and south
overlooks, and system of pedestrian walks
are examples. They are part of the highly
designed "form -world" of the Memorial.
These are contributing features.
2. Features developed in the Saarinen/Kiley
designs only to a schematic level — but
subsequently developed, and construc-
tion documents prepared, by National
Park Service and other designers — are
also contributing features and convey the
significance of the landscape. An example
is the single-species allees of Rosehill ash
(Fraxinus americana 'Rosehill'), which
were substituted for the tulip poplars
(Liriodendron tulipifera) preferred by Kiley.
3. Features based on Saarinen/Kiley concepts
(expressed in graphic and/or narra-
tive form), and completely designed by
others are for the most part considered
non-contributing, though they may be
compatible with the original design intent
of the Memorial. For example, the service
areas and other service features (located
on a plan by Saarinen/Kiley in a manner
that screened them from view, and never
intended to be a part of the "form-world" of
the Memorial) were designed over time by
others and are generally non-contributing
but compatible by virtue of their adherence
to the requirement that they be visually
unobtrusive in the landscape.
4. Features that were neither imagined by
Saarinen/Kiley nor drawn by them, but
were wholly designed and implemented by
others in ways that detract from the "form-
world" of the Memorial and/or are visually
intrusive, are considered non-contributing
incompatible features.
The intent of the National Park Service has
always been to communicate the architec-
tural and landscape architectural values
of the Saarinen/Kiley plan. The landscape
surrounding the Gateway Arch derives
significance from that design concept. The
ideas of the Saarinen/Kiley plan are important;
however, not all of the built features at the
Memorial reflect the intent of Saarinen/Kiley.
This is due, in part, to financial constraints
JEFFERSON NATIONAL EXPANSION MEMORIAL CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT
ANALYSIS AND EVALUATION / 4-3
over a long implementation period. In this
respect, the more the features reflect the
designers' intent, the more significant they are
as integral parts of the cultural landscape.
EXISTING RECOGNITION AND
SIGNIFICANCE STATUS
In light of the importance of the landscape
to the significance of the site, both the 1976
National Register nomination and the 1987
National Historic Landmark nomination state-
ments of significance were reviewed as part of
the preparation of the statement of significance
for the cultural landscape. These nomina-
tions set a baseline of previously-recognized
significance and provide precedents for how
the significance of the landscape is evaluated in
this report. 8
The following are summaries of the periods
of significance in these two nominations and
how the significance statements characterize
the landscape. The Memorial's landscape was
listed prior to completion of its construction,
an unusual situation which led to the end dates
of the periods of significance in the 1976 and
1987 nominations being stated as "present."
While these statements of significance mention
various landscape features extant at the
time, little detail is provided to explain the
significance, character, and associations of the
Memorial as a whole, or how the grounds and
Gateway Arch were interrelated from a design
perspective. The 1996 version of the Cultural
Landscape Report endeavored to do so,
providing a detailed history of the site concept,
design process, and the Saarinen/Kiley
collaboration. It may be advisable in the future
to revisit these nominations in order to add
new details relating to the significance of the
Memorial, including the post -1987 designed
landscape.
National Register District nomination (1976)
1. Period of Significance: "1935 to present."
a. 1935: establishment of Memorial
(enabling legislation).
b. "present" = 1976.
2. District covers the "T-shaped park," and
identifies specific buildings/structures
contributing to the district: the Gateway
Arch, Old Courthouse, and Old Cathedral.
The Memorial grounds construction was
well under way at this time, but incom-
plete, with the overlooks, steps, and grand
staircase listed in the nomination as part of
the district, but described as "now under
construction."
National Historic Landmark District
nomination (1987)
1. Period of significance: "1947 to present."
a. 1947: Saarinen's initial design is submitted
to the competition.
b. "present" = 1987.
2. The National Historic Landmark is called
"Jefferson National Expansion Memorial
Gateway Arch," and the discussion within
the nomination focuses mostly on the
Gateway Arch, but the boundary of the
district covers the entire Memorial area east
of Memorial Drive.
3. The nomination discusses existing features
of the landscape as part of the significance
statement. "Curvilinear, graceful staircases
of toned concrete at the north and south
ends provide access to the Arch grounds
from the riverfront. The grounds them-
selves are carefully landscaped with ponds,
trees, and walkways that again reflect the
gentle curve of the Arch. Similar curves are
repeated in the tunnel entrances for the rail-
road tracks that cut through the property.
The design of the concrete tunnel entrances
is so finely incorporated into the landscape
through the curvilinear lines and placement
below grade that the entrances hardly seem
to exist."
CULTURAL LANDSCAPE
PERIOD OF SIGNIFICANCE
The period of significance for the Jefferson
National Expansion Memorial landscape
is 1947-2003. This period encompasses
the key design and ongoing construction
activities pertaining to the Memorial and its
character-defining features, beginning with
the 1947 design competition and ending with
4-4 / ANALYSIS AND EVALUATION
JEFFERSON NATIONAL EXPANSION MEMORIAL CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT
the last major element of the design that was
constructed: the central portion of the grand
staircase. Note that the beginning and end
dates of the overall period of significance
encompass the following key dates/periods:
a. 1947-1948: Design competition - Saarinen/
Kiley team entry wins in initial and second
rounds of competition.
b. 1957-1964: Saarinen and Kiley collaborate
on the conceptual and schematic designs
for the Memorial. Saarinen dies in 1961
during the design process, and the National
Park Service acceptance of the design-
development drawings in 1964 marks the
end of Kiley's direct involvement. The 1964
drawings serve as the benchmark for later
implementation and evaluation.
c. 1966-1986: National Park Service landscape
architects and consultants develop the
1964 Saarinen/Kiley design drawings into
construction drawings, and the design is
largely implemented in two phases of major
work (1971-1976, 1978-1981) with several
other features built in intervening years.
Some features are modified due to factors
outside the control of the NPS landscape
architects, such as budget constraints. Many
aspects of the design's implementation
in this period faithfully retain the design
concept, but are not executed exactly as
conceptualized.
d. 2003: Completion of the grand staircase
central section, based largely on the 1964
design. This represents the implementa-
tion of the final design concept that was
developed in the Saarinen/Kiley drawings,
but only partially executed in the early
construction of the Memorial. Note that the
grand staircase as built was modified from
the Saarinen design.
The period of significance begins in 1947, the
year the United States Territorial Expansion
Commission sponsored a national design
competition, marking the inception of the
Memorial idea. Eero Saarinen started with a
four-person design team including an archi-
tect, landscape architect, painter, and sculptor.
The team's design was chosen for its monu-
mental, inspired, symbolic arch.
Between 1948 and 1957, the National Park
Service, City of St. Louis, and the United States
Territorial Expansion Commission negoti-
ated with the Terminal Railroad Association
(TRRA) on the relocation of the railroad
tracks. During this nine-year period, Saarinen
and Kiley moved on to other projects; and,
for various reasons, some of the original
team members — including the painter and
sculptor — were no longer involved. 9 By
1957, Saarinen had become established as
an architect at the forefront of the Modern
movement. His burgeoning practice employed
many talented young architects such as Robert
Venturi, Cesar Pelli, and Kevin Roche. The
collaborative work of many designers in
Saarinen's studio strengthened the design for
the Memorial as it was developed.
In 1957 the negotiating parties reached an
agreement on the relocation of the tracks.
The solution, to place the tracks below
grade in a series of tunnels and open cuts
along the eastern side of the site, forced
Saarinen to make changes to his winning plan.
Nevertheless, even as some program elements
changed, the underlying concept remained the
same: a symbolic memorial, in the form of an
inverted catenary curve, placed in a designed
landscape setting on the riverfront.
From 1957 to 1964, Saarinen and Kiley — then
Kiley on his own — took the overall concept
for the Memorial and expanded it until the
patterns of spatial organization and circulation
met their ideals as well as the needs of the
National Park Service. In 1964, a drawing set by
Saarinen/Kiley was approved by the National
Park Service, although the planting plan
was revised through 1966. Once the concept
and organizing features were solidified by
Saarinen/Kiley and approved by the National
Park Service, NPS landscape architects were
charged with preparing construction docu-
ments and executing the plan. 10 Between i960
and 1986, most of the major design features in
the Saarinen/Kiley plan were constructed; the
grand staircase's central section was completed
in 2003.
Saarinen and Kiley were associated with the
site through the design development phase;
therefore the landscape significance under
National Register Criterion C derives from
JEFFERSON NATIONAL EXPANSION MEMORIAL CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT
ANALYSIS AND EVALUATION / 4-5
the concepts of Saarinen and Kiley, not from
the physical details of each landscape feature,
many of which were determined after the
master designers' involvement ended. During
the design development stage of a project,
materials, colors, and construction specifica-
tions are not always considered. Saarinen
and Kiley did not create construction details
for many features at the Memorial, instead
concentrating on the overall form of the land-
scape. The structure of the landscape is created
by the shape of the landform, the patterns of
spatial organization, the patterns of circula-
tion, and siting of the Gateway Arch. This
framework was conceptualized by Saarinen
and Kiley; afterwards others were charged with
selecting materials and instructing contractors
in the physical execution of their design.
Some features constructed during the period
of significance do not contribute to the
significance of the Memorial landscape, due
to major departures from the 1964 design and
the stated Saarinen/Kiley vision. Others do not
contribute because they were not developed
in the 1964 drawings, and were implemented
based on National Park Service and other
designers' concepts. These include the parking
garage, lighting, maintenance facility, tree
grates, and paving materials of the walks. Both
the garage and maintenance facility were built
in locations specified by Kiley, but they are
not based on the design concepts (which were
never developed past a master plan concept
level). The maintenance building is not the
earth-sheltered building originally planned.
Instead of the surface parking lot Kiley had
depicted, a parking garage was built to accom-
modate more vehicles.
The end date of the landscape period of
significance may be considered for revision in
the future under certain circumstances. It is
possible that the appropriate end date could
shift forward in time, if and when unrealized
elements of the design are constructed in the
future, depending on the closeness of the
realized design to the 1964 Saarinen-Kiley
design. Some elements of the design that were
not developed completely include the pedes-
trian overpasses across Memorial Drive and
the fountains planned to the north and south
of the Gateway Arch. If Saarinen and Kiley
did not develop the designs past a conceptual
level, then a newly designed feature utilizing
their general intent could be constructed as
a compatible, but non-contributing, feature
post-dating the period of significance. Such
features could include the overpasses over
Memorial Drive and the two fountains in the
north and south triangles. This kind of revision
to the period of significance would have to
be carefully evaluated and justified based on
accepted National Register criteria, which
could potentially occur in future updates to
this report or to the Memorial's National
Register or NHL nominations, if warranted.
COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF
HISTORIC AND EXISTING LANDSCAPE
CONDITIONS BY CHARACTERISTIC
After the period of significance was estab-
lished, a comparison of landscape features
conceptualized and built in the period of
significance (1947-2003) to the current land-
scape was undertaken. There are three parts
to this comparison for each characteristic and
major feature:
• An assessment of the feature during the
period of significance (the "historic condi-
tion");
• An assessment of the feature in 1995,
updated to 2009 where conditions have
changed (the "existing condition"); and
• An analysis of the feature, together with
a determination regarding the feature's
contribution to the significance of the prop-
erty.
Because significance is based on an associa-
tion with the Saarinen/Kiley plan, the historic
condition section for each feature discusses the
Saarinen/Kiley design intention, if known, and
how closely the actual implementation of the
feature appears to resemble this concept.
Since the significance of this landscape is
directly related to the Saarinen/Kiley design
concept rather than its physical implementa-
tion, those features which have a character
reflecting the designers' intent are more
significant than those constructed features
4-6 / ANALYSIS AND EVALUATION
JEFFERSON NATIONAL EXPANSION MEMORIAL CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT
which diverge from the intent. Therefore, each
landscape feature was assessed as either being
contributing or non-contributing based upon
its relationship to design intent. This chapter
concludes with an assessment of the integrity
of the Memorial landscape.
Terms frequently encountered in descriptions
of the significance of the cultural landscape are
contributing, character-defining, and non-
contributing. These are related, but distinct,
terms.
The terms contributing and non-contributing
are specific, quantifiable items intended for
field identification of features for the purpose
of the Cultural Landscape Inventory (CLI)
and National Register of Historic Places
evaluations. 9 Further, non-contributing features
can be classified as either compatible non-
contributing or incompatible non-contributing.
Definitions are as follows:
Contributing
• A contributing feature is "a biotic or abiotic
feature associated with a landscape charac-
teristic that contributes to the significance
of the cultural landscape." 12
• Similarly, a contributing resource, according
to the National Register, is "a building, site,
structure, or object that adds to the historic
significance of a property. A contributing
building, site, structure, or object adds to
the historic associations, historical archi-
tectural qualities, or archaeological values
for which a property is significant because
of the following: it was present during
the period of significance; it relates to the
documented significance of the property; it
possesses historic integrity or is capable of
revealing information about the period; or it
independently meets the National Register
criteria." 13
• At the Memorial, contributing features
reflect the Saarinen/Kiley design intent in
their built character.
Character-defining features are within the
set of contributing landscape features; they
are those features that represent the essential
historic qualities that lend the landscape its
significance. Character-defining features
represent the most "prominent or distinctive
aspect(s), quality(ies), or characteristic(s) of a
historic property that contributes significantly
to its physical character. Structures, objects,
vegetation, spatial relationships, views. . .
may be such features." According to the CLR
Guide, "The term 'character-defining feature'
was conceived to guide the appropriate treat-
ment and management of historic structures
(and later of cultural landscapes), so that
features conveying historic character would be
retained by treatment activities." 14
Non-Contributing
• A non-contributing feature is "a biotic or
abiotic feature associated with a landscape
characteristic that does not contribute to
the significance of the cultural landscape." 15
• A non-contributing feature is "a building,
site, structure, or object that does not add to
the historic architectural qualities, historic
associations, or archaeological values for
which a property is significant, because: it
was not present during the period of signifi-
cance or does not relate to the documented
period of significance of the property;
due to alterations, disturbances, additions
or other changes, it no longer possesses
historic integrity or is capable of yielding
important information about the period; or
it does not independently meet the National
Register criteria." 16
• In the case of the Memorial, a non-contrib-
uting feature is one that was designed and
implemented by a subsequent designer, or a
design that was altered during implementa-
tion to the point that it no longer reflects the
Saarinen/Kiley design intent.
• Non- contributing features or resources,
however, are not all the same: they can
have different impacts on the integrity of
a cultural landscape or a historic district.
Compatible and incompatible are distinc-
tions that can be used to capture the
different qualities of these features. 17
JEFFERSON NATIONAL EXPANSION MEMORIAL CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT
ANALYSIS AND EVALUATION / 4-7
Non-contributing compatible is a term used
most often in describing buildings or other
features in urban historic districts that are not
historic in their own right, but are constructed
or sited in a way that does not detract from the
surrounding historic fabric.
The term "compatible" is used in preservation
discussions of how new uses may be incorpo-
rated in historic settings. For example, a defini-
tion of the rehabilitation treatment approach
is "the act or process of making possible an
efficient compatible use for a cultural land-
scape through repair, alterations, and additions
while preserving those portions or features
that convey its historical, cultural and archi-
tectural values." In rehabilitation, "alterations
and additions [must] be compatible with
the historic character of the landscape," and
"rehabilitation maintains the existing integrity
and character of a historic structure, but allows
major additions or alterations to accommodate
a compatible contemporary use."' 8
Non-contributing incompatible features are
the non-historic features of the landscape that
are intrusive and may detract from its integrity.
While the conceived-but-not-built design
elements cannot be considered contributing
and have no bearing on the integrity of what
exists now, they have implications for how
compatible additions may be considered and
designed in the future.
TOPOGRAPHY
Historic Condition: Saarinen was responsible
for the design of the landform, and intended
the catenary- curve geometry which character-
izes the Gateway Arch and other site structures
to also be expressed by curving lines on the
ground plane.' 9 The landform is composed of
fill and carefully sculpted to achieve specific
spatial and visual effects. 20 Saarinen's insis-
tence that the railroad cease to be a visual
and physical obstruction between the city
and the riverfront had a decisive effect on the
landform. This decision resulted in a combina-
tion of open cuts and tunnels for the railroad
through the eastern part of the Memorial.
The topography was masterfully sculpted to
hide the tracks and, as a result, the train causes
minimal distraction in the Memorial setting.
Two high points, located within the centers
of the north and the south triangles, are on
axis with the Gateway Arch. The ground
plane gradually rises to these points from the
Gateway Arch legs at an approximately 2.8
percent slope; the topography drops gradu-
ally to street level at a minimal slope in the
northwest, and at a steeper, 6.3 percent slope in
the southwest. Depressed areas were designed
around the service areas and maintenance
facility to hide the operational activities of the
Memorial from view of visitors. The landform
was intended not only to screen these activi-
ties, but also to prevent visitors from accessing
them.
Other significant designed landforms include
the bowls creating the north and south ponds,
the plinths forming the north and south over-
looks, and the berms along Memorial Drive.
The ponds not only serve as aesthetic features
but were also designed as part of the drainage
system, as they were sited at some of the lowest
elevations in the landscape. The two overlooks,
in contrast, were constructed high above the
river levee to provide vantage points for views.
Berms located along Memorial Drive, while
part of the original plan, were constructed
higher than originally designed, when during
the second phase of construction (1978 to 1981),
excess fill material was added to them (possibly
also to reduce the impacts of wind on the
Gateway Arch). The southwest berm was built
up six feet higher, and the northwest 14 feet
higher, than specified in the original design.
Existing Condition: All of these topographic
features were implemented essentially as
designed, although the berms are slightly taller
than intended. Since design implementa-
tion, a few modifications to topography have
occurred. Small berms were added along the
north and south walks on the east side of the
Memorial grounds to eliminate a drainage
problem and to deter pedestrians from walking
on the lawn. Other minimal, incremental
changes to the topography occur during
seasonal turf renovation.
Memorial management has identified several
drainage problems which affect the sculpted
landform. The most serious problem occurs
along the west side of the walls of the open
railroad cut, where the existing drainage
4-8 / ANALYSIS AND EVALUATION
JEFFERSON NATIONAL EXPANSION MEMORIAL CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT
system is not working properly, resulting in
continued erosion of the slopes along these
structures. As a result, water and soil flows
over the walls and onto the tracks during hard
rains.
Drainage problems are evident on slopes
throughout the Memorial grounds. For
instance, along the edges of some of the
pedestrian sidewalks, particularly in the
southwest part of the Memorial, water runs off
the walk and into the lawn area on the adjacent
slope, causing soil erosion. Poor drainage
appears to be causing chronic damage to the
edges of some large paving expanses, such as
the northwest plaza and the north overlook.
There are areas of poor drainage in the lawn
near the southwest baldcypress circle. Minor
erosion is also evident along the slopes of
the eastern sides of both ponds; north of the
grand staircase; southwest of the North Service
area; and on the top of the slope by the South
Service area.
Analysis: Contributing.
The topography of the Memorial grounds is
a character-defining element of the Saarinen/
Kiley concept. The landform was implemented
as originally intended, and remains intact
today. The few changes made over time have
resulted in minimal divergence from the design
concept. The taller berms as built eliminate
views of the roadway and reduce noise and
pollution within the Memorial, and are there-
fore functionally important to the visual quality
of the Memorial landscape.
SPATIAL ORGANIZATION
This section begins with an overall description
of the Memorial's spatial organization, and
then by distinct areas within the Memorial
grounds.
Historic Condition: The landscape surrounding
the Gateway Arch was designed using
the Modern interpretation of Beaux- Arts
compositional principles, a signature style that
Saarinen employed in many of his designs. At
the Memorial, the overall space was organized
and unified, combining a nearly symmetrical
plan with an east-west primary axis, a north-
south secondary axis, and a repetition of
curving forms echoing the catenary curve
geometry of the Gateway Arch in various
other features. The monumental character of
the landscape is achieved through the varying
scales and relationships of the spaces, and the
spatial experience of compression and expan-
sion created along the length of the pedestrian
walks.
The planting plan was altered during the
second major phase of implementation. The
changes diverged somewhat from Kiley's
design, affecting the pattern of spatial orga-
nization, particularly around the ponds. The
number of plants was diminished, resulting in
fewer enclosed spaces, thresholds, and edges
than originally intended. Reduction in the
numbers of plants used for screening functions
slightly weakened the intended separation of
service areas and visitor use areas.
Existing Condition: The current landscape as
constructed reflects the design intention for
spatial organization. The topography, ponds,
and walks support the volumes and spaces
that were part of the original design. While
the planting plan of the allees along the walks
achieves the intended effect of enclosure,
the Rosehill ash trees do not have the size
and form Kiley intended. In other areas, the
spatial effect resulting from the reduction in
planting density from the original design is
evident, such as around the ponds and the
Old Cathedral parking lot, maintenance area,
service areas, railroad tunnels, and along
Memorial Drive. Planted form in Luther Ely
Smith Square is similar in plant locations lining
the north and south edges of the square, but
the wider spacing and plant forms differ from
the rest of the grounds. The reduction of plants
in some areas resulted in a divergence from
the designers' intended spatial quality of the
landscape.
Analysis: Contributing.
The overall spatial organization of the property
remains the same as the Saarinen/Kiley plan,
and therefore is contributing. A few minor
departures from their plan occur in the planted
forms and density used along the east-west
axis, Memorial Drive, around the operations
areas, in Luther Ely Smith Square, and around
the ponds. However, the strength of the
JEFFERSON NATIONAL EXPANSION MEMORIAL CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT
ANALYSIS AND EVALUATION / 4-9
designed spatial organization of the Memorial
grounds continues to be character-defining.
Landscape features that support the overall
spatial organization of the Memorial landscape
are identified as contributing features are
describled below in more detail.
System Of Walks And Allees
(See Circulation for more information on
walks; Vegetation for more information on
single-species allee plantings.)
Historic Condition: The circulation system
was a key element in organizing the Memorial
landscape. The system, as planned by Saarinen,
organized space in two ways. It provided
access from multiple points (from every
corner and side of the Memorial), leading
visitors to the Gateway Arch. It differs in
this way from many traditional memorials
which are approached along a single route
such as a formal processional way. The trees
line the walks in allees with the same curving
alignments and a strong north-south axial
relationship to the Gateway Arch, providing
different views of the Gateway Arch, ponds,
and riverfront. The triangles, in particular,
were intended to frame a designed view of the
Gateway Arch along the north-south axis. The
changing widths of the pedestrian walks evoke
a streamlined, uniform, flowing character
that reflects segments of the Gateway Arch's
catenary curve.
Kiley recognized that in the landscape,
horizontal dimensions are typically much
greater than vertical dimensions. Plants are
often used as vertical elements to organize
and delineate space. The use of trees closely
spaced along the walks in an allee created a
deliberate edge and sense of enclosure. The
trees, spaced 30 feet on center, formed a dense
overhead canopy providing enclosure for the
visitor while affording carefully controlled
glimpses towards the soaring Gateway Arch. 21
Kiley said in a 1993 interview that he intended
the trees to be cathedral-like, to create an
"elevated, spiritual feeling." The use of the
same tree throughout the pedestrian path
system strengthened the edge and provided
visual continuity and fluidity. Kiley stated that
the main goal in the landscape design was
"to develop a sense of movement of spatial
continuity. This was done by arranging undu-
lating lines of high tulip poplar trees spaced
very close together so they started from either
entrance wide and narrowed down to a neck,
and then as one turned to the side elevation of
the Arch, the trees would widen up to the base.
This development would happen on both sides
of the Arch." 22 These allees were constructed
along the north-south walkways, but remain
unrealized in one area — on the lawn side of
the walkways leading along the main axis from
the west.
Existing Condition: The spatial organization
of the Memorial is essentially the same as
designed. The walks are in place today as
designed. The form of the Rosehill ash trees
that were substituted for tulip poplars specified
by Kiley is not as upright, and some of the trees
are missing, but the overall effect remains as
intended.
Analysis: Contributing.
The uniformity of the closely spaced allee
planting and the curving edges and alignments
of the walks are part of the original Saarinen/
Kiley design and evoke the intended spatial
quality, despite substitution of a different tree
species (see Figures 4.1 and 4.2).
Primary Axis Between The Old Courthouse
And The River
Historic Condition: The relationship between
the Old Courthouse, the Gateway Arch, and
the river is a strong axis that was a primary
organizing element of the Saarinen/Kiley
concept from the beginning. Saarinen intended
for the Memorial to connect to the city and the
river. The axis was left as an open space, the
Gateway Arch centrally located within it, thus
creating a strong visual and physical connec-
tion between the city and the river. Saarinen
intended the grand staircase to be monumental
in scale, to symbolize movement west through
St. Louis, and to extend the primary axis from
the Gateway Arch to the river. The topography
along this axis was revised in design develop-
ment in order to accommodate the rail line,
which eliminated the possibility of the earlier
concept of long views extending from the Old
Courthouse to the river.
4-10 / ANALYSIS AND EVALUATION
JEFFERSON NATIONAL EXPANSION MEMORIAL CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT
-+ h
■P
fi iL
r^ft
i ■fiPff '• i '
■,' ■
Sfe '^£ r
*.*^>ipl
|Pl««r-i-»
l^^^^^^^l - 1
^fe^X ■
Figure 4.1. Office of Dan Kiley, "Approach to Gateway Arch from Southwest, Summer," design development
drawing, December 1962. 0NEM Archives, uncatalogued collection)
Figure 4.2. Approach to the Gateway Arch from the southwest, 2009. Note that the perspective in this photo-
graph differs from that in the drawing produced by the office of Dan Kiley.
JEFFERSON NATIONAL EXPANSION MEMORIAL CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT
ANALYSIS AND EVALUATION / 4-11
Existing Condition: The linear connec-
tion between the Old Courthouse and the
Mississippi River through the Gateway Arch is
a primary organizing element of the Memorial.
Analysis: Contributing.
The spatial connection between the Old
Courthouse (a civic symbol of St. Louis) and
the Mississippi River survives as a character-
defining feature that is a key component of the
Saarinen Kiley plan.
Pond Areas
Historic Condition: Kiley's intended spatial
composition at the ponds was to contrast
dense, tall forest tree masses in some areas with
open meadows in others. The edge between
these spaces was to be articulated with
flowering trees. The sinuous edge of the ponds
was intended to create smaller spaces within a
larger whole.
Existing Condition: Enclosed spaces created by
vegetation and topographic forms surround
the ponds. The north and south ponds each sit
within a gentle depression, creating a sense of
separation from the city.
Analysis: Contributing.
In general, the spatial relationship of the ponds
to the rest of the Memorial grounds is the same
as in the Saarinen/Kiley design. The planting
around the ponds varies somewhat from the
original concept. Particularly to the north
and south of both ponds, the elimination of a
large number of plants before implementation
resulted in what the designer described as
haphazard plant spacing and composition. 23
However, the enclosure by trees around the
edges defines the space in a way that remains
similar to the concept (see Figures 4.3 and 4.4).
Overlooks
The overlooks were intended as formal viewing
platforms for the river, a key component of
the symmetrical site plan, as well as "finials"
bracketing the ends of the Memorial grounds
as viewed from the east side of the river. They
continue to fulfill these functions today. For
more analysis of the overlooks as structures,
see the Buildings and Structures section below.
Luther Ely Smith Square
Historic Condition: In the Saarinen/Kiley plan,
Luther Ely Smith Square was a raised plaza
framed by two triple allees of trees (of the
same single-species planting as seen on the
rest of the Memorial grounds) on the north
and south sides of the block. Two pedestrian
overpasses connected these allees across
Memorial Drive to the Memorial grounds. The
pedestrian overpasses and rows of trees were
intended to physically and visually connect the
square to the rest of the Memorial grounds.
The overpasses and tulip poplar allees were
never implemented, nor was the raised plaza.
Existing Condition: Currently, Luther Ely
Smith Square is a depressed plaza with three
areas of lawn with central planting beds of
perennials. It is spatially defined by two rows
of trees on the north and south sides, but the
scale and form of the species differ from the
design intent. The sunken garden, defined by
sloped lawn areas and narrow sidewalks, does
not resemble the raised plaza proposed in the
Saarinen/Kiley design.
Analysis: Non-contributing compatible.
Luther Ely Smith Square today lacks elements
that were identified in the Saarinen/Kiley
concept for the space. Although its details
and furnishings are not in keeping with the
Modern aesthetic of the rest of the Memorial
grounds, the space upholds the major axis
from the Old Courthouse to the river by
leaving this vista unobstructed (see Figures 4.5
through 4.8).
Old Courthouse Block
The Old Courthouse was integrated into the
design composition of the Memorial as a
symbol of the city of St. Louis. It was intended
to function as the eastern axial terminus of
the Saarinen/Kiley site plan's primary axis. It
continues to fulfill this function today.
Analysis: Contributing (For more about
the Old Courthouse, see the Buildings and
Structures section below.)
4-12 / ANALYSIS AND EVALUATION
JEFFERSON NATIONAL EXPANSION MEMORIAL CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT
Figure 4.3. Office of Dan Kiley, design development perspective sketch of the view of the Gateway Arch
across a pond, September 1963. Note height, habit, and texture of the vegetation in the foreground, and the
curving form of the pond edge. 0NEM Archives, uncatalogued collection)
Figure 4.4. Pond edge: note character of lawn and tree vegetation, 2009.
JEFFERSON NATIONAL EXPANSION MEMORIAL CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT
ANALYSIS AND EVALUATION / 4-13
Service Areas
Historic Condition: Service areas including
the generator building (north service area),
shipping and receiving area (south service
area), maintenance facility, and parking garage
were sited as zones on the Saarinen/Kiley plan.
These areas were not designed in detail by
Saarinen/Kiley but their plans clearly showed
the that operational facilities were to be sited
within low points in the topography and
screened by vegetation, concealing them from
the view of visitors. The design character of
these functional areas, as they are not visible
to the public, was not addressed by Saarinen/
Kiley, who did not appear concerned with the
formal characteristics of the service facilities as
long as they remained concealed.
Existing Condition: Today, the service areas
fulfill the Saarinen/Kiley concept, as they are
— > — =i iXSf_
Figure 4.5. Harland Bartholomew & Associates' design development sketch of proposed pedestrian over-
passes over Memorial Drive and Luther Ely Smith Square, 1975. (JNEM Archives, Record Unit 120, Drawing
366/41025)
Figure 4.6. View across Luther Ely Smith Square, 2009.
4-14 / ANALYSIS AND EVALUATION
JEFFERSON NATIONAL EXPANSION MEMORIAL CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT
Figure 4.7. Studies of the proposed pedestrian overpasses. (Eero Saarinen & Associates, c. 1960. JNEM
Archives, uncatalogued collection)
JEFFERSON NATIONAL EXPANSION MEMORIAL CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT
ANALYSIS AND EVALUATION / 4-15
Figure 4.8. Studies of the proposed pedestrian overpasses. (Eero Saarinen & Associates, c. 1960. JNEM
Archives, uncatalogued collection)
sited in low areas in locations where they were
placed in the concept design. They are unob-
trusive within the landscape. The maintenance
facility is not as well screened by plantings as
was intended, however, and it is visible from
some of the walks in the south end of the
Memorial grounds.
Analysis: Contributing.
The spatial arrangement of the service areas
reflects the Saarinen/Kiley design intent,
including their siting at low points surrounded
by screening vegetation to camouflage their
presence.
VIEWS AND VISTAS
The centrality of the Gateway Arch within the
axial composition of the Memorial landscape
had a direct influence on the designed views
and vistas. According to Saarinen, "the Arch
is in a sense a vertical monument on one axis
and a wide monument in another." 24 Views
and vistas relate to both of these aspects of the
Gateway Arch, the city, and the river.
View from the Old Courthouse
to the Gateway Arch
Historic Condition: The strong east-west align-
ment between the Old Courthouse and the
Gateway Arch was intended to create a primary
vista, referred to at one time as the "Saarinen
vista." From the east, the Gateway Arch was
to frame the Old Courthouse. From the west,
the Gateway Arch was originally intended to
frame a view of the Mississippi River. Saarinen
wanted to create a strong visual relationship
between the river and the city. Pedestrian
overpasses and allees were designed, but
never realized, in Luther Ely Smith Square
with the intention of strengthening this vista.
The vista was created when the Gateway Arch
was constructed between 1963 and 1965. The
view to the Mississippi River that Saarinen had
intended, however, was compromised by the
grading of the site necessitated by the retention
of the railroad.
Existing Condition: The vista between the Old
Courthouse and the Gateway Arch exists as
implemented. Luther Ely Smith Square and the
pedestrian overpasses were never constructed,
4-16 / ANALYSIS AND EVALUATION
JEFFERSON NATIONAL EXPANSION MEMORIAL CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT
but the axial relationship is still very strong and
the design intent is evident.
Analysis: Contributing.
The vista between the Old Courthouse and the
Gateway Arch is a fundamental concept from
the Saarinen/Kiley design that was realized and
is a major feature of the landscape today.
View Along the North-South Axis
Historic Condition: Views of the Gateway
Arch were intentionally planned from specific
vantage points in the Memorial grounds. These
views resulted from the designers' manipula-
tion of landscape features such as topography,
circulation, and vegetation. The vistas from
the north and south triangles, on axis with the
Gateway Arch, framed the sides of the Gateway
Arch as a "vertical monument," tall and
narrow, as opposed to the view from the Old
Courthouse which portrays the Gateway Arch
as a "wide monument." 25
A series of glimpses of the Gateway Arch were
intended along the pedestrian approaches,
framed by the layout of the walks and the
dense plantings of trees. The close, regular
spacing of the trees and the gentle curve of
the walks creates a sheltered condition, with
occasional moments of openness that reveal
views of the Gateway Arch. As the trees have
grown, they have more closely fulfilled the
original design intent by blocking views of
the Gateway Arch from some areas of the
Memorial grounds. The limited remaining
views (for example, the views along the walks
from the north and south rest areas) have
become more dramatic as a result (see Figures
4.9 and 4.10).
Existing Condition: The views of the Gateway
Arch from the north-south axis survive today
as intended by Saarinen/Kiley. However, as
the trees along the walks grow larger, they are
beginning to block the lower portion of some
of these views.
Analysis: Contributing.
The designed views to the Gateway Arch along
the north-south axis of the memorial are a
character- defining feature of the Memorial
landscape. Dramatic glimpses of the Gateway
Arch from vantage points along the walks exist
as intended.
Figure 4.9 Office of Dan Kiley, "View Towards Arch
from C-C," design development drawing, December
1962. (JNEM Archives, uncatalogued collection)
Figure 4.10. View to Gateway Arch along north-
south axis, 2009.
JEFFERSON NATIONAL EXPANSION MEMORIAL CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT
ANALYSIS AND EVALUATION / 4-17
Views Around the Ponds
Historic Condition: Views from the pond areas
are shaped by the surrounding undulating
landforms and plantings. Clumps of trees
contrasting with open meadow areas were
intended to obscure views in some areas and
afford dramatic views in other areas, such as
the views from within the circular plantings of
baldcypress near each pond, framed through
an intentional gap in the arc of the trees. The
reflection of the Gateway Arch in the ponds
was intended to enhance views from this area.
Existing Condition: Views of the Gateway Arch
from the ponds exist generally as intended.
Analysis: Contributing.
Views to the Gateway Arch from the ponds
reflect the design concept and therefore are
contributing (see Figures 4.11 and 4.12).
Views Between the Memorial and East St.
Louis
Historic Condition: The view from the Gateway
Arch to East St. Louis was intended to feature a
wooded park on the east side of the Mississippi
River. Saarinen's vision was to extend the
Memorial to the east side of the river because
of the magnificent views afforded from the east
side toward downtown St. Louis. The Gateway
Arch would frame the city. As with views from
the Old Courthouse to the Gateway Arch, this
view is influenced by the axial arrangement
of the design and therefore the Gateway Arch
appears as a wide monument.
Existing Condition: The Memorial has yet
to be expanded but the views from the east
side and the Poplar Street and Eads Bridges
are magnificent. The National Park Service
has been authorized by Congress to begin
purchasing land on the east side for future
Memorial development.
Analysis: Contributing.
Open views to and from East St. Louis reflect
the design intent and therefore are contrib-
uting. However, Saarinen/Kiley's concept of
what was to be viewed in East St. Louis was
never fully defined or realized (see Figures 4.13
and 4.14).
Views From the Overlooks
Historic Condition: The overlooks were
designed to function as viewing platforms for
the Mississippi River.
Existing Condition: The overlooks provide
views to the Mississippi River and East St.
Louis, as well as views toward the Gateway
Arch.
v
Figure 4.11. Office of Dan Kiley, design development
perspective sketch of the view of the Gateway Arch
across one of the ponds, September 1963. (JNEM
Archives, uncatalogued collection)
Figure 4.12. View to the Gateway Arch across the
south pond, 2009.
4-18 / ANALYSIS AND EVALUATION
JEFFERSON NATIONAL EXPANSION MEMORIAL CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT
Analysis: Contributing.
Screened Views of Service Areas
Historic Condition: The service areas were
intentionally screened through their place-
ment within topographic hollows and planting
design.
Existing Condition: The service areas are
largely screened from view, particularly at
ground level. The Maintenance Facility is not
sufficiently screened.
Analysis: Contributing.
(See Spatial Organization for more analysis of
these areas.)
BUILDINGS AND STRUCTURES
Gateway Arch
Historic Condition: The Gateway Arch, a
630-foot-tall monumental structure in the
form of a single weighted, inverted catenary
curve, was constructed between 1963 and
Figure 4.13. Office of Dan Kiley, "View from East St. Louis," design development drawing, December 1962.
(LNEM Archives, uncatalogued collection)
Figure 4.14. View to Gateway Arch from East St. Louis, 2009.
JEFFERSON NATIONAL EXPANSION MEMORIAL CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT
ANALYSIS AND EVALUATION / 4-19
1965. It is composed of 172 triangular, stainless
steel, double-walled sections. 26 The Gateway
Arch was intended to be the centerpiece of
the landscape, with its geometry echoed in
other designed features in the surrounding
landscape. On the larger scale, the landscape
was intended to serve as a base to the Gateway
Arch, grounding it in an abstracted "forest."
From the river and East St. Louis, the flood-
walls and overlooks were designed to appear
as "finials" at either end of a "pedestal"
supporting the Memorial.
Existing Condition: The Gateway Arch
currently exists as designed and implemented
during the period of significance. No exterior
structural changes have been made since its
construction. The relationship of the Gateway
Arch to the landscape remains essentially as
designed by Saarinen: details of other features
in the landscape reflect it's catenary curve
geometry, and the undulating topography,
curving walks, and lush vegetation of the
Memorial grounds provide a foundation and
contrast to the soaring steel structure.
Analysis: Contributing.
The Gateway Arch, the main character-
defining feature of the Memorial, was
constructed as the original architect and
engineers intended, and has been maintained
in its original condition; its role as primary
focal point of the surrounding landscape also
remains as intended. A Historic Structure
Report is currently underway for the Gateway
Arch.
Old Courthouse
Historic Condition: The three-story Greek
Revival Old Courthouse was constructed
between 1839 and i862. 27 The Old Courthouse
underwent major rehabilitations in 1941-1942,
1954-1955, and 1985. Throughout the cultural
landscape period of significance, the first floor
of the building served as a museum, inter-
preting the famous Dred Scott case that took
place in one of its courtrooms. 28 The second
floor featured two restored courtrooms and
served as administrative offices.
Existing Condition: The building retains its use
as a museum and administrative offices for the
Memorial and its appearance from the period
of significance (see Figures 4.15 and 4.16).
Repairs, such as chimney stabilization, have
occurred in recent years. The building was not
assessed structurally nor the interior consid-
ered in this report. The landscape surrounding
the Old Courthouse reflects its appearance
after a "restoration" completed by the National
Park Service in 1954 based on a c. 1870 photo-
graph. 29 Thorough historical documentation
of the Old Courthouse environs has not been
undertaken.
Analysis: Contributing.
The Old Courthouse is a major element of
the axial arrangement of the Memorial. More
information is needed regarding its historic
appearance over time.
Visitor Center And Museum Of Westward
Expansion
Historic Condition: The underground Museum
of Westward Expansion and visitor center
located beneath the legs of the Gateway Arch
was conceptualized as early as 1959. 30 The
visitor center was completed in 1966. The
lobby, including the center fountain and the
loading zones for the transportation system
was designed by Saarinen & Associates after
Eero Saarinen's death. Kevin Roche was the
primary designer for these areas. Two theaters
were conceptualized as part of the interpreta-
tion of the Gateway Arch. The 325-seat North
Theater, later renamed the Tucker Theater,
was completed in 1972 and the hollowed out
space for the South Theater remained vacant
until funds became available for construction.
Aram Mardirosian developed the plan for the
Museum of Westward Expansion which was
completed in 1976. 3 '
Existing Condition: The visitor center and
Museum of Western Expansion have under-
gone improvements since the early 1990s.
The Odyssey Theater, the second of the two
theaters planned, was constructed in 1990-
1993. The "image-wall," a slide/film program,
was removed in 1989 to create space on the
north wall for the American Indian Peace
Medal Exhibit, which was completed in 1994. 32
Overall, the Museum of Westward Expansion
retains Mardirosian's design. In 1995, the
Museum Store and Bi-State ticketing area
were remodeled to accommodate increasing
4-20 / ANALYSIS AND EVALUATION
JEFFERSON NATIONAL EXPANSION MEMORIAL CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT
numbers of visitors. The Museum Store was
again redesigned and remodeled in 2006.
Analysis: Contributing.
The belowground location of the visitor center
and Museum of Western Expansion reflect
Saarinen's design intent, though the exhibit
design itself is not historic. The underground
portions of the Memorial are conceptu-
ally important. The two concealed service
areas (the generator building and shipping
and receiving) for this complex are also
contributing, characterized by their carefully
concealed siting and ongoing function.
Maintenance Facility
Historic Condition: According to the approved
concept development plan, a maintenance
building was to be located at the south end
of the site. Other than its location, no details
about the maintenance facility were speci-
fied on the Saarinen/Kiley plan. However, it
is evident from the proposed landform
surrounding the building that it was intended
to be an earth-sheltered structure, hidden from
view.
Until 1974, maintenance equipment was
stored in the hollowed out shell of the future
Museum of Westward Expansion and visitor
center. When funds were appropriated for
the construction of the Museum of Western
Expansion, the need for a maintenance facility
became apparent. In 1974 a temporary prefab-
ricated steel building measuring 32 by 72 feet
was erected on the southwest portion of the
site (approximately 240 feet northwest of the
designed location). 33 Although the building
was expected to be temporary, a lack of funds
delayed the construction of a permanent
facility. The temporary building was relocated
and continued in use during the second phase
of landscape construction (1978-1981). The
temporary building was replaced in 2003 with
a newly constructed two-story maintenance
facility sited in the location designated on the
Saarinen/Kiley plan.
Existing Condition: The maintenance facility
is a recently constructed facility in good
condition that serves the current needs of
Memorial management. Its siting, massing, and
low profile make it relatively unobtrusive and
sympathetic to the rest of the Memorial.
Analysis: Non-contributing compatible.
While the maintenance facility is in the loca-
tion specified in the Saarinen/Kiley concept,
it was not developed in the original plans.
The maintenance facility has no relationship
to the design aesthetic or "form-world" of
the Saarinen/Kiley plan. However, it is sited
in the manner shown on the Saarinen/Kiley
plan, which specified service areas to be
placed low in the topography and screened
by plantings. While the maintenance facility
is non-contributing and is not the product
of Saarinen/Kiley, it is compatible with the
Memorial. The screening of the Maintenance
Facility, however, is insufficient.
Figure 4.15. Old Courthouse, 1939. (JNEM
Archives, visual image 106-175, Record
Unit 106, Box 20, Folder 42)
Figure 4.16. Old Courthouse, 2009
JEFFERSON NATIONAL EXPANSION MEMORIAL CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT
ANALYSIS AND EVALUATION / 4-21
Parking Garage
Historic Condition: Parking was always a part
of the Saarinen/Kiley concept plan and was
envisioned to occur on the north end of the
Memorial. 34 Eero Saarinen was awarded a
contract in 1959 to study the feasibility of a
parking garage on the site. 35 He concluded that
it was feasible, but a lack of funds prevented its
design and construction at that time.
Surface parking existed at one time on almost
the entire site, from the time the site was
originally cleared (c. 1939). The area dedicated
to parking was reduced as landscape develop-
ment progressed. At one time, the north end
of the site served as a temporary surface lot. By
1981, an asphalt-paved surface lot in this loca-
tion accommodated approximately 320 cars. 315
The existing parking garage was designed by
HB&A and constructed between 1984 and
1986. It is a three-story (two underground)
structure accommodating 1,208 cars and
occupying 4.7 acres. 37 The garage construction
was made possible by an agreement between
the City of St. Louis, the Bi-State Development
Agency, and the National Park Service. 38
Existing Condition: The parking garage is in
good condition. The garage is maintained and
run by Metro (formerly known as the Bi-State
Development Agency).
Analysis: Non-contributing compatible.
The parking garage is in keeping with the
use identified for this area in the Saarinen/
Kiley design concept, but was not physically
developed in the design, and is therefore
not contributing. The garage is generally
unobtrusive from the Memorial grounds; it
was designed to fit into the area designated
for parking on the original plan, so its form
and use are compatible. It is not, however, the
work of Saarinen or Kiley. It does not share the
distinctive Modern design vocabulary of the
Memorial landscape (evident in the overlooks,
for example).
Grand Staircase
Historic Condition: Eero Saarinen designed the
grand staircase to symbolize "the movement of
peoples through St. Louis, the gateway" 39 The
stairs were a monumental physical connection
between the Gateway Arch and the riverfront.
They were to be 500 feet wide at the top and
291 feet wide at the bottom, with curved sides
to reflect the curvature of the Gateway Arch.
The depth of the treads would decrease from
approximately four feet deep at the bottom
of the stairs to one foot six inches deep at
the top, to "dramatize the upward sweep
of the approach to the Arch." 4 " The risers
were designed to be nine inches tall, not the
standard six inches, for aesthetic reasons. 41 The
support beams and pilings for the staircase
were constructed in the early 1960s when the
railroad tunnels running beneath them were
completed.
In 1974, HB&A re-designed the tread-riser
relationship of the steps to a more comfortable,
consistent relationship of six-inch risers and
one-foot-three-inch treads. Two landings were
also incorporated as well as snow-melting mats
on the north end. The steps were implemented
in two phases. Phase I of the "Monumental
Entrance," consisting of the north and south
side sections, was constructed in 1975 to 1976 to
the specifications developed by HB&A. Some
of the original support beams and pilings from
the 1960s were utilized for construction. Phase
II, the center section, was completed in 2003.
Existing Condition: The grand staircase as
built fulfills the location, function, and general
appearance/alignment of the Saarinen/Kiley
plan, but the tread-riser relationship was
substantially altered. The snow-melting mats
work intermittently. There are some areas
where the seams between the new and old
sections of the stairs are separating or shifting.
A structural analysis of the staircase was not
undertaken as part of this report.
Analysis: Contributing.
The grand staircase is part of the Saarinen/
Kiley concept. Although the tread/riser
relationship was altered by a subsequent design
firm when the staircase was implemented,
the location, function, and general form were
retained from the original plan. Saarinen/Kiley
plan. As identified in their vision, it serves as
the grand formal connection from the Gateway
Arch to the riverfront on the primary axis.
However, the steps' variable tread lengths and
heights as designed by Saarinen, which would
4-22 / ANALYSIS AND EVALUATION
JEFFERSON NATIONAL EXPANSION MEMORIAL CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT
have resulted in a curved profile, were altered
in implementation to a standard six-inch riser
and landings (see Figure 4.17).
North And South Overlooks
Historic Condition: The overlooks were
designed to provide a place to view the
Mississippi River from the Memorial grounds.
They were constructed as designed by
Saarinen & Associates in 1960-1962, at an
elevation of approximately 457 feet above sea
level. The interior spaces of the overlooks,
accessed beneath the viewing platforms, were
envisioned as museum locations but this use
was never realized.
Existing Condition: The overlooks are formal
high points situated above the river, creating
"finials" for the Memorial grounds as viewed
from East St. Louis. The monumental walls of
the overlooks function as part of the floodwall
system, while the plazas serve to bridge the rail
lines. Both the walls and the staircases leading
from the river to the overlooks were designed
with Saarinen's trademark catenary curve. The
interior of the North Overlook is currently
used for storage, and has never been used as
museum space. The South Overlook interior
space was not constructed.
There are a number of condition problems at
the overlooks, including spalling, efflorescing,
and crumbling concrete, failing expansion
joints, and water infiltration within the
floodwalls. A coating that was applied at some
point in the past to repair the surface of the
overlook staircases, viewing platform, and
steps is deteriorating.
Analysis: Contributing.
The north and south overlook structures,
implemented in the initial construction of the
Memorial, are an integral part of the Saarinen/
Kiley design concept and are character-
defining structures. Their key features are their
locations at the ends of the Memorial; their
open quality that permits sweeping views from
atop the overlooks; the presence of catenary
curve segments in the concrete formworks of
the floodwalls and staircases; and the mono-
lithic appearance of the structures owing to
their unified form and material.
Railroad Open Cut Walls And Tunnels
Historic Condition: The depressed railroad
alignment that runs through a series of below-
grade open cuts and tunnels was conceptual-
ized and designed by Saarinen & Associates.
/&/ '~<3 4^fc
£/ SZSZSfy'S" \£JA&1\&
/&-?&£,•
j?s &7<S*?S ! &/-3^
Figure 4.17. Section detail through grand staircase, November 1960. (JNEM Archives, Record Unit 120,
Drawer 22, Folder 12)
JEFFERSON NATIONAL EXPANSION MEMORIAL CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT
ANALYSIS AND EVALUATION / 4-23
Constructed in 1959-1960, the cuts and tunnels
concealed the rail line from view, fulfilling
a major design priority of Saarinen's. A
960-foot-long tunnel segment with an 18-foot
vertical clearance was constructed beneath the
proposed grand staircase, connecting the two
open cuts. The entrances to the tunnels are
curved, using catenary segments reflecting the
geometry of the Gateway Arch. The tops of the
railroad cut retaining walls are also curved.
Existing Condition: The railroad alignment and
its open cuts and tunnels exist in their original
locations and forms. A structural analysis of
the walls and tunnel structures has not been
undertaken. The tracks are currently in use by
TRRA.
Analysis: Contributing.
The curvilinear entryways to the tunnels were
intended to reflect the "single form-world"
present throughout the site. The tunnels and
open cuts were intended to screen the railway
from the Memorial grounds. They were
constructed to closely reflect the Saarinen/
Kiley design, and were built during the earliest
phase of construction.
Retaining Walls
Historic Condition: Retaining walls at the
depressed service areas were not clearly
detailed by Saarinen and Kiley. 42 Details and
construction specifications were completed by
HB&A and implemented in the second phase
of construction.
Existing Condition: These retaining walls do
not have any visible characteristics (catenary
curve segmentss, monolithic concrete work)
that connect them to Saarinen/Kiley design's
"form-world." They function to support the
depressed service areas, which are part of the
original design. The structural integrity of the
retaining walls has not been assessed and their
condition is undetermined.
Analysis: Non-contributing compatible.
The walls do not directly relate to the
Saarinen/Kiley design and therefore they are
non-contributing. However, they are func-
tionally important to maintain the existing
landform.
VEGETATION
General Plant Composition
Historic Condition: Dan Kiley proposed a
plant palette of 16 tree species to structure
and define spaces. His intent was to rely on a
purposely limited number of species, creating
a consistent and dense planting to give the
spaces character and definition. The design
concept depended upon the scale and form of
the tulip poplar to define the triple allees; tall
canopy trees such as oak (Que reus sp.), ginkgo
(Ginkgo biloba), and hackberry (Celtis occiden-
tal) to create forested areas to the north and
south of the ponds; and a limited number of
understory flowering trees like eastern redbud
(Cercis canadensis), flowering dogwood
(Cornus florida) , star magnolia (Magnolia
stellata), and saucer magnolia (Magnolia x
soulangiana) to edge the tall tree canopy, and
to provide color and texture. These flowering
trees were intended to work together with the
pond's curvilinear edge to define small-scale
spaces. Evergreen trees, including Canadian
hemlock (Tsuga canadensis), were intended
to screen views of service and parking areas.
By 1974, changes were made to the Kiley
plan as planting was implemented; National
Park Service plans showed an increase in
the number of species, and a reduction in
the overall number of trees to be planted.
This differed from the Kiley scheme, which
had proposed few species and dense plant-
ings. The forms of the tree species proposed
by the National Park Service were also less
distinctive and varied in their character than
Kiley's proposed species. The greater variety
of species, spread more evenly over the
landscape, as planted in the second phase of
construction, obscured the original intent of
the planting.
Existing Condition: There are currently 32 tree
species planted at the Memorial, twice the
number proposed by Kiley. There are approxi-
mately 2,179 trees in total, only 56 percent of
the number originally proposed. With the
exception of the highly organized allees, the
tree plantings are widely spread across the
site, dotted in uniformly mown turf lawn and
encircled with mulch rings.
Analysis: Contributing.
4-24 / ANALYSIS AND EVALUATION
JEFFERSON NATIONAL EXPANSION MEMORIAL CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT
The overall plant composition in some respects
reflects Kiley's design intent, particularly the
distinctive planted form of the dense allees of
uniform trees, the open lawn on the vista from
the Old Courthouse to the Gateway Arch, and
the baldcypress circles. However, in the pond
areas, the concept of forest and meadow has
been somewhat obscured by the development
of a manicured, park-like character composed
of small groups and single tree plantings set
in a closely clipped lawn. The original intent
in tree structure, form, and texture have not
always been taken into consideration when
tree replacements were made. Areas along the
railroad open cuts were not planted as densely
as intended in the Kiley planting plan.
Single-Species Allees
Historic Condition: According to the Saarinen/
Kiley plan, a triple allee (three parallel rows)
composed entirely of tulip poplar trees was to
be planted along either side of the walks, for a
total of six rows. The dense, uniform mass of
upright, straight-trunked trees planted along
the walks was the strongest single feature
of the Kiley planting plan. The uniform, tall
trees would define the pedestrian space and
conceptually strengthen the simplicity of the
Gateway Arch and the surrounding site design
(see Figures 4.18 and 4.19).
At the outset of the first major phase of
construction the single-species tree planting
of tulip poplar was changed to the Rosehill
ash by the National Park Service Western
Service Center of Design and Construction. 43
The alignment and spacing of the trees was
maintained as specified on the approved plan.
However, the differences in form were not
carefully considered, as the Rosehill ash has
a rounded canopy and wider branching form
than the proposed tulip poplar which has a
more columnar trunk and upright-oval canopy
(see Figures 4.20 through 4.22).
Existing Condition: The condition of the allees
is fair. The original alignment and spacing has
been retained. The oldest trees (those planted
during Phase I of construction, 1971-72) have
lived well beyond the life expectancy of an
urban tree. 44 Some trees have reached maturity
or been removed and require replacement.
Other trees have been replaced in-kind since
1981, although due to concerns about the
emerald ash borer, missing ash trees have not
been replaced in recent years.
Analysis: Contributing.
The allee planting along the walks reflects the
Saarinen/Kiley design concept and therefore
is contributing. Although the tree species
originally specified by Kiley was not used, the
concept of a uniform planting of the same tree
with a precise alignment and close spacing
was implemented and is a character-defining
feature of the Memorial grounds.
Baldcypress Circles
Historic Condition: Two circles of baldcypress
trees (Taxodium distichum), one in the north-
west portion (51 trees proposed) and one in
the southwest portion (70 trees proposed) of
the site, were depicted on the Saarinen/Kiley
concept plan. These areas had been depicted
since the earliest plans in 1947 and were origi-
nally meant to serve as "campfire" interpretive
areas. During the second major planting phase
in the late 1970s and early 1980s, 34 baldcypress
trees were planted in the northwest circle, and
30 in the southwest.
Existing Condition: The two circles of baldcy-
press remain on the site. The northwest circle
consists of 35 trees and the southwest circle
consists of 31 trees. Several of the trees are
replacements of the original planting.
Analysis: Contributing.
The baldcypress trees reflect the Saarinen/
Kiley design concept and therefore are
contributing. Although the number of trees
was reduced during implementation, the
general form and materials were maintained
(see Figures 4.23 and 4.25).
Pond Area Plantings
Historic Condition: Kiley's design concept for
the pond areas relied on a limited number of
species and a large number of trees, providing
massing that was to be reminiscent of a forest
with a few open meadow areas. The concept
for planting included a few tall canopy tree
species (oak, ginkgo, and hackberry) planted
in groves; and several species of flowering
trees, such as Eastern redbud, dogwood,
JEFFERSON NATIONAL EXPANSION MEMORIAL CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT
ANALYSIS AND EVALUATION / 4-25
Figure 4.18. Office of Dan Kiley, "Approach to Gateway Arch from South, Winter," design development
drawing, December 1962. (TNEM Archives, uncatalogued collection)
Figure 4.19. Approach to Gateway Arch from north, 2009.
4-26 / ANALYSIS AND EVALUATION
JEFFERSON NATIONAL EXPANSION MEMORIAL CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT
\
air
^
f ^
X
vwi*^ '
\r
1
«,
Wi
r
x ^
^
r
o
75
Ph
Z
T3
C
a.
M
a.
U
a.
s
o
u
s
BO
JEFFERSON NATIONAL EXPANSION MEMORIAL CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT
ANALYSIS AND EVALUATION / 4-27
Figure 4.21. Rosehill ash profile. (Gregg
Bleam, 1996)
magnolia, Washington hawthorn (Crataegus
phaenopyrum), cherry (Prunus sp.), and
crabapple (Malus sp.) planted as an under-
story fringe around the canopy tree groves to
provide color and texture. The specific loca-
tion of trees varied in the conceptual planting
plans as they were altered and developed,
making it difficult to discern whether Kiley had
specific locations in mind for these plantings
within the pond areas; the general intent for
the character of the plantings, however, is
clear.
The planting plans developed by the National
Park Service departed from the Kiley concept
by adding more tree species and greatly
decreasing the numbers of trees.
Existing Condition: The tree plantings do not
appear to be organized or structured based on
a larger design, but are scattered as individuals
and small groupings across the landscape.
The groundcover is closely mown lawn with
circular mulch rings surrounding the trees. The
effect is a manicured, "park-like" appearance;
the distinction between forest and meadow
conceived of in the original Kiley planting plan
is not evident.
Analysis: Non-contributing compatible.
Figure 4.22. Tulip poplar profile. (Greg
Bleam, 1996)
The overall plant composition and spatial
arrangement around the ponds does not
reflect Kiley's design intent, and therefore is
non-contributing. The concept of forest and
meadow is obscured by random tree plantings
and manicured lawns. The attributes of tree
structure, form, and texture in Kiley's design
have not been taken into consideration when
tree replacements were made. The result is a
non-distinctive, disorganized character in the
plantings (see Figures 2.25 and 2.26).
Railroad Open Cut And Tunnel Plantings
Historic Condition: Kiley proposed dense
plantings screening the railroad cuts and
tunnel entrances. Kiley specified predomi-
nantly Canadian hemlock to screen the area
and eastern redbud and flowering dogwood to
add texture and color. Shrubs, such as fragrant
sumac (Rhus aromatica), flowering quince
(Chaenomeles speciosa), and mugo pine (Pinus
mugo) were also intended to screen visually
incompatible uses as well as add interest with
color, form, and texture. The groundcover
Bulgarian ivy (Hedera helix 'Bulgaria') was
proposed along the steep slopes on the west
side of the railroad cuts.
4-28 / ANALYSIS AND EVALUATION
JEFFERSON NATIONAL EXPANSION MEMORIAL CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT
The first of these plantings was installed in 1971
along the west side of the railroad alignment.
The planting consisted of black pine (Pinus
thunbergii), replacing the originally intended
Canadian hemlock and redbud.
Existing Condition: The railroad tunnels are
planted with groundcover, including Bulgarian
ivy and scarlet firethorn (Pyracantha coccinea),
interspersed with daylilies (Hemerocallis sp.).
The slopes to the west of the open cuts are
planted primarily in lawn, with a few pine
trees on the northwest. The slopes along the
southern open railroad cut are planted with
linden (Tilia americana) and Japanese pago-
datree (Sophora japonica) on the western side,
and lawn on the eastern side.
Figure 4.23. Sketch of proposed view to the
Gateway Arch from baldcypress circle, Office of
Dan Kiley, Sept. 1963. (JNEM Archives, un cata-
logued collection)
Figure 4.24. View to Gateway Arch from baldcy-
press circle, 2009.
Analysis: Non-contributing compatible.
A few of the original trees have been retained,
but for the most part these areas have been
substantially altered. Existing vegetation,
which is primarily open lawn with scattered
individual trees and groups of small trees, does
not reflect the character of the Saarinen/Kiley
concept planting plan, which called for dense
evergreen screening with a few flowering trees
for contrast.
Plantings Along The East Side Slopes
Historic Condition: Kiley proposed massed
tree plantings along the eastern slopes of
the railroad open cuts, which line Leonor
K. Sullivan between the overlooks. These
slopes were planted between 1978 and 1979.
These plantings included flowering dogwood,
star magnolia, Arnold crabapple (Malus
arnoldiana), black pine, and Bulgarian ivy.
The planting followed the Kiley proposal
closely. The Bulgarian ivy was removed several
years later because it was being choked out by
weeds.
Existing Condition: Wintercreeper (Euonymus
fortunei) groundcover is planted on these
slopes, as well as lawn grass in the areas
adjacent to the grand staircase. The overlook
staircases are lined with trees on the east side,
some of which are dead or dying.
Analysis: Non- contributing compatible.
Service Area Plantings
Historic Condition: The plants proposed
around the service areas (generator building,
shipping and receiving, and maintenance
facility) were intended to visually screen these
operational functions and discourage visi-
tors from approaching. Low-growing plants,
including mugo pine, fragrant sumac, and
flowering quince, were proposed as under-
story vegetation. Canopy and flowering trees
including red oak {Quercus rubra), white oak
(Quercus alba), hackberry, magnolia (saucer
and star), crabapple, eastern redbud, and
flowering dogwood were proposed along the
slopes. Heavy plantings of Canadian hemlock
were proposed around the maintenance
building. These areas were generally planted as
proposed on the Kiley planting plan. Changes
JEFFERSON NATIONAL EXPANSION MEMORIAL CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT
ANALYSIS AND EVALUATION / 4-29
Figure 4.25. Detail of south pond plantings, Kiley final conceptual planting plan, 1964 (JNEM Archives,
Record Unit 120, Drawer 12, Folder 10).
Figure 4.26. Diagrammatic map of south pond plantings, existing conditions, 2009.
included the substitution of black pine for
Canadian hemlock, the elimination of flow-
ering quince, and the introduction of winter-
creeper as the groundcover planted on the
slopes surrounding the service areas. Bulgarian
ivy was planted on the slopes surrounding the
maintenance facility, but it was later removed
and replaced with sod.
Existing Condition: The plantings around the
service entrances are in fair condition. The
original black and mugo pines have since been
largely replaced in these areas, due in part to
their declining health, particularly around the
maintenance facility. The maintenance facility
is edged by scattered small trees in turf along
the slope, which does not currently provide
adequate screening. The planting around the
south service area is denser and more mature
than those around the north service area, and
both have been replanted recently with mugo
pines. The wintercreeper groundcover is
growing vigorously in these locations.
Analysis: Non-contributing compatible.
The plantings around the service areas
generally reflect the Saarinen/Kiley concept
of screening the facilities from view. However,
many of the plants have been replaced with
different species, and in the case of the mainte-
nance facility, existing plantings are too sparse
to screen the area effectively.
Street Edge Plantings
Historic Condition: Kiley intended tulip poplars
to be planted along both sides of Washington
Avenue, as well as along the edges of a large
triangle within the roadway. These were never
realized. Along the eastern side of Memorial
Drive, groves of canopy and flowering trees
were intended to extend approximately 350
feet along the sidewalk from each entrance.
Interspersed between these groves, unreal-
ized meadows extended roughly 600 feet on
the north and 350 feet on the south. Dense
plantings along Poplar Street were intended
4-30 / ANALYSIS AND EVALUATION
JEFFERSON NATIONAL EXPANSION MEMORIAL CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT
to screen the maintenance area from view.
In addition to the plantings along the eastern
slopes of the Memorial (discussed above),
Kiley intended Canadian hemlock to line
both sides of Leonor K. Sullivan Boulevard.
Baldcypresses were substituted for the
hemlock, and planted only along the eastern
side of the street. At the Old Courthouse block,
tulip poplars were to define the north and
southeast lawns.
Existing Condition: The tree and shrub plant-
ings along Washington Avenue, installed in
2009 by Metro, include London planetrees
(Platanus x acerfolia), shrub viburnums
(Viburnum sp.), and ornamental grasses. The
trees along the Memorial's northwestern edge,
along Memorial Drive, consist of clumps of
hawthorn, river birch (Betula nigra), magnolia,
and eastern redbud; these are less dense than
those in Kiley's final planting plan, and extend
into the areas Kiley intended for meadows.
To the north of the Old Cathedral, adjacent
to the entry to the Memorial, is a grove of red
maple (Acer rubrum) trees. To the southwest,
Rosehill ashes line the Memorial's perimeter.
Several lindens are found along Poplar Street,
and Leonor K. Sullivan Boulevard is planted
on the west side with baldcypress between the
staircases.
Analysis: Non-contributing compatible.
Parking Garage Plantings
Historic Condition: The Saarinen/Kiley plan
proposed Japanese pagodatrees for the main
parking area at the north end of the Memorial.
The intent of this planting was presumably to
shade the parking lot and to better integrate
the lot into its surroundings. The proposed
planting was dense, and would have screened
views of the proposed parking area from
the Memorial. This was never realized, but
plantings were added around the garage after
its construction in 1986 based on a planting
plan developed by WVP Corporation. Planting
along the northeastern edge of the parking
garage was modified in 1997, with a number of
trees removed to accommodate a new pedes-
trian sidewalk. The screen planting added
with the sidewalk was later reduced due to the
installation of a security camera.
Existing Condition: The parking garage planting
is high-maintenance due to the inclusion of
many crabapple trees which require frequent
pruning. 45 Circular concrete planters that once
contained Amur maple (Acer ginnala) stand
atop the garage; the trees did not survive in
the planters in this exposed location without
irrigation. East of the parking garage is a
group of Bradford pears (Pyrus calleryana
'Bradford'). Problems with plantings in this
area have resulted from sandy soil with a high
pH and steep slopes.
Analysis: Non- contributing incompatible.
The existing planting in this area does not
reflect any aspect of the originally proposed
Saarinen/Kiley plan and therefore it is non-
contributing. While it is not very intrusive
due to its peripheral location, the planting is
not in keeping with the design concept for the
Memorial, is in poor condition, and presents
maintenance problems.
Lawn Areas
Historic Condition: Little emphasis was placed
on lawn in the Saarinen/Kiley plan. The
most prominent turf areas identified on their
plan were large, open lawn underneath and
stretching to the west of the Gateway Arch,
and the small lawns (sometimes referred to
by their form in plan as the "teardrops" and
"triangles") along the north-south axis of
the Memorial. The open areas around the
ponds were meant to represent meadow, and
therefore presumably were not envisioned
to be mown turf, but rather taller grasses.
However, Kiley's specific intention (if any) for
the groundcover planting in these areas has not
been determined.
The Memorial's turf areas were later planted
with a seed mix developed in the late 1970s
known as the "Arch Grounds Seed Mix." 4<i
The mix consisted of 49 percent arboretum
bluegrass, 15 percent regal ryegrass, 15 percent
creeping red fescue, 10 percent glade bluegrass,
and 10 percent Kentucky bluegrass.
Existing Condition: Over a 91-acre site, the soil,
sun and shade conditions, watering practices,
natural factors, drainage, and level of use varies
greatly. The use of a single seed mix to meet
JEFFERSON NATIONAL EXPANSION MEMORIAL CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT
ANALYSIS AND EVALUATION / 4-31
these varied conditions with the expectation
of producing quality results was determined to
be unrealistic, and the Arch Grounds mix is no
longer used. Three seed types are currently in
use: "Thermal Blue" in sunny areas, a generic
shade mix made up predominantely of glade
bluegrass, red fescue, and rye for shady areas,
and a blend of turf-type fescues for the sandy
area over the museum roof. All the turf is regu-
larly mown and aerated, and sod is replaced,
resulting in a well-manicured lawn cover over
most of the Memorial grounds.
Analysis: Non-contributing compatible.
The open lawn areas under the Gateway Arch
and on the north-south axis of the Memorial
are important aspects of the Saarinen/Kiley
plan primarily in terms of the spatial quality
of openness rather than the quality of the
groundcover itself; therefore the turf does
not itself contribute to the significance of the
landscape. Although lawn areas are important
to the current appearance of the Memorial
grounds and should maintained at a high level
to meet the expectations and uses of an urban
park, the seed mix used is not significant and
may be modified to better manage varying site
conditions.
Luther Ely Smith Square Plantings
Historic Condition: In the Saarinen/Kiley
plan, Luther Ely Smith Squarewas shown with
two triple allees of tulip poplars on the north
and south sides of the block. Two pedestrian
overpasses emerged from these allees and
connected to the allees along the east -west
axial walkways. The vegetation was intended
to connect this area to the main portion of the
Memorial grounds. The overpasses and tulip
poplar allees were never implemented.
Existing Condition: Currently, Luther Ely Smith
Square is a depressed plaza with three lawn-
edged central planting beds of perennials and
ornamental grasses. The north and south edges
of the block are defined by two alternating
rows of sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua)
and crabapple trees.
Analysis: Non-contributing incompatible.
CIRCULATION
Pedestrian Walks
Historic Condition: The curvature of the walks
was meant to reflect the catenary curve of the
Gateway Arch. The symmetrical alignment of
the walks strengthened the axial arrangement
of the site design. The layout of the walks and
the spacing of the trees in and alongside them
was intended to be the dominant landscape
feature, reflecting the simplicity of the Gateway
Arch.
The paving material for the walks was not
specified by the designers. NPS landscape
architects specified exposed aggregate
concrete as the material for the sidewalks. The
walks were constructed in two different phases
during the period of significance. The align-
ment of the walks, however, was implemented
as the original designers intended.
Existing Condition: The walk paving and align-
ment exists as implemented. Some sections of
the walks have been replaced or repaired.
Analysis: Contributing.
The existing walk layout reflects the Saarinen/
Kiley design concept and therefore is
contributing. Walk alignment is an important
organizing elements of the design and a
character-defining feature. The layout of the
walks, their unified material appearance, their
earthy color and texture, and their relation-
ship to the tree plantings are all distinctive
characteristics that come from the Saarinen/
Kiley design. The specific aggregate material of
the walks is not as important, since no material
was specified by Saarinen/Kiley, although it
is compatible with the design of the walks at
the Memorial. The walks have been prone to
maintenance problems over time due to freeze/
thaw and tree root heaving. These issues are
discussed in more detail in Chapters 3 and 5.
Gateway Arch Entrance Ramps And Steps
Historic Condition: The entrance ramps leading
to the visitor center were designed by Eero
Saarinen & Associates and constructed in the
1960s. The concept of entering the Gateway
Arch at the base was important because it
dramatically affected the visitor experience.
4-32 / ANALYSIS AND EVALUATION
JEFFERSON NATIONAL EXPANSION MEMORIAL CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT
Approaching the Gateway Arch across the
Memorial grounds and being able to touch the
base before descending below, then ascending
to the top, provided a breathtaking experience
of contrast in scale and an unfolding visual
experience of the Memorial.
Concrete "steps" were constructed along
portions of the ramps to be used as sitting
walls. 47 The ramps were made of terrazzo tiles,
which were replaced by granite pavers in 1983.
The steps, or architectural sitting walls, were
made of poured concrete.
Existing Condition: The ramps remain essen-
tially the same in form and structure as their
original designed and implemented appear-
ance. The ramps were resurfaced with granite
pavers (c. 2005-2007) to ameliorate slippery
conditions when wet or icy. However, the
slippery ramps continue to present safety and
maintenance problems. The ramps do not meet
the Uniform Federal Accessibility Standards (41
CFR 101-19.6) or the Architectural Barriers Act
Accessibility Standards (ABAAS) required for
federal facilities. The concrete steps are in fair
condition.
Analysis: Contributing.
The Gateway Arch entrance ramps and steps
are part of the Saarinen design concept and
therefore are contributing. The ramps are
dangerous when they become wet and they do
not meet current accessibility standards.
Old Cathedral Parking Lot
Historic Condition: The Old Cathedral parking
lot was conceptually located south of that
historic structure. Details of the lot were not
developed by Saarinen/Kiley; however, the
approved plan shows a planting bed on the
lot's west side along Memorial Drive. The
parking lot was constructed in 1961 as a result
of an agreement between the National Park
Service and the Archdiocese. 48 The lot was
asphalt-paved and accommodated approxi-
mately 85 cars.
Existing Condition: The existing parking lot is
in good condition. It was redesigned by Cox/
Croslin and Associates in 1993 and recon-
structed in 1994. The parking lot differs from
the original in that it was moved approximately
12 feet to the east to accommodate a bus drop-
off along Memorial Drive. The lot accommo-
dates 81 cars, with accessible spaces. It is paved
in asphalt, and measures approximately 225 by
105 feet.
Analysis: Non- contributing compatible.
Conceptually the parking lot contributes to the
Saarinen/Kiley design because it is located on
the site they selected for this function, directly
south of the Old Cathedral. However, the
materials and construction details, while not
conflicting with their surroundings, do not
reflect a Saarinen/Kiley design concept.
Old Cathedral Sidewalk
Historic Condition: This sidewalk leading from
the Old Cathedral to the Gateway Arch was
not a part of the Saarinen/Kiley plan. It was
designed by HB&A and constructed during
the second major phase of implementation.
The eight-foot-wide walk was constructed of
exposed aggregate to match the Memorial's
existing sidewalk system.
Existing Condition: The Old Cathedral side-
walk is in fair condition.
Analysis: Non-contributing compatible.
The Old Cathedral sidewalk was not part of
the Saarinen/Kiley design and therefore it is
non-contributing. However, the walk is unob-
trusive, matches the existing walks in terms of
its materials, and is functionally important to
circulation in the Memorial grounds.
Interior Roads
Historic Condition: Interior roads to the service
entrances were not clearly detailed on the
Saarinen/Kiley site plan. A road to the south
service area was illustrated on the plan to be
about 12 feet wide, with unspecified paving.
The road was to lead from the sidewalk south-
west of the south leg of the Gateway Arch to
the south service area (shipping and receiving).
A service road, while necessary, was not clearly
indicated on the Saarinen/Kiley plan at the
north service area (generator building).
HB&A altered the Saarinen/Kiley plan to
include a service road from Memorial Drive to
the south service entrance, and a road from the
JEFFERSON NATIONAL EXPANSION MEMORIAL CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT
ANALYSIS AND EVALUATION / 4-33
exposed aggregate sidewalk north of the north
leg of the Gateway Arch to the north service
area. A delivery truck turnaround was also
designed and constructed at the south service
area. The south road is asphalt, approximately
13 feet wide. The north road was constructed of
two strips of precast porous pavers, replaced
c. 2003 with a standard mix, light-colored,
broom-finish concrete drive.
Existing Condition: The roughly 15-foot-wide,
white broom-finish concrete service roads to
the north and south service areas are in good
condition. These roads contrast with the other
paving materials found in the eastern portion
of the Memorial.
Analysis: Non-contributing incompatible.
The interior service roads as constructed do
not reflect the Saarinen/Kiley plan and there-
fore are non-contributing. They are generally
not visually intrusive at ground level, due to
surrounding grading, but the use of light-
colored concrete is quite visible from above (in
views from the top of the Gateway Arch).
Perimeter Roads
Historic Condition: The exterior roads
surrounding the Memorial grounds created
definite edges to the site design. It was
originally bounded by Washington Avenue
on the north, Poplar Street on the south,
Wharf Street on the east, and the Third Street
Expressway on the west. A pair of pedestrian
overpasses were conceptualized early in the
planning stages to bridge over the Third Street
Expressway between the Gateway Arch and
the Old Courthouse, and were studied more
extensively by Saarinen & Associates after
Saarinen's death. Few changes were made to
the exterior roads. Washington Avenue was
relocated approximately 20 feet north when
the Arch Parking Garage was constructed
in 1986. Wharf Street was renamed Leonor
K. Sullivan Boulevard, and the Third Street
Expressway became known as Memorial
Drive.
Existing Condition: Memorial Drive is a busy
street, and there have been many accidents at
the various intersections along the Memorial's
edge in the past. The pedestrian overpasses
intended to bridge over Memorial Drive
were never constructed, and pedestrians
must cross at street level. Memorial Drive
and the depressed I-70 expressway beneath
it divide the Memorial grounds so strongly
that some visitors do not realize that the Old
Courthouse is within the Memorial. Accessible
curb cuts were installed in 2009 at Memorial
Drive pedestrian crossings to improve visitor
access between the two sides of the Memorial
grounds.
Analysis: Contributing.
The exterior roads on the perimeter of the
Memorial are generally the same as during
the period of significance and therefore they
are contributing. Although this aspect of the
design is partly unrealized without the pedes-
trian overpasses, the potential to make visual
and physical connections remains.
CONSTRUCTED WATER FEATURES
North And South Ponds
Historic Condition: The Saarinen/Kiley
concept plan depicted lagoons, or ponds, on
the northwest and southwest portions of the
site. The south pond was proposed to occupy
approximately 1.88 acres; the north, 2.5 acres. 4 '
An island was proposed on the north end of
each pond with narrow footbridges accessing
it, but this feature was never realized and
disappeared as the form of the ponds changed
through design development. The pond
edges were depicted as complex and sinuous.
Their complex shapes, combined with Kiley's
planting plan, were meant to create a variety
of intimate spaces along the ponds' edges (see
Figure 4.27).
By 1969 the plans for the ponds took on a
more simplified form, still curving, but with
less intricate and irregular geometry, and the
islands and footbridges were no longer consid-
ered (see Figure 4.28). It appears that the NPS
design teams were responsible for simplifying
the shapes to make construction possible. The
ponds were constructed in the second phase
of development (1978-1981). The south pond
occupies approximately 1.59 acres, the north
pond approximately 1.82 acres. 50 Although
the sizes and shapes are comparable to those
proposed by Saarinen and Kiley, the simplifica-
tion of the edge represents a difference from
4-34 / ANALYSIS AND EVALUATION
JEFFERSON NATIONAL EXPANSION MEMORIAL CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT
the original design. 5 ' However, it fulfills the
design intent to a great degree.
Existing Condition: The concrete pond edges
are in good condition today. Substantial algae
blooms were observed on the south pond, and
mosquitoes were noted at the north pond.
Structural assessment of the ponds was not
undertaken as part of this report. The ponds
are periodically drained and cleaned.
Analysis: Contributing.
The north and south ponds reflect the
Saarinen/Kiley design concept and therefore
are contributing. Although the shapes have
been simplified and the islands and footbridges
were not constructed, the location and design
as implemented of the two curving-edged
reflecting ponds meets the designers' intent.
SMALL-SCALE FEATURES
Benches
Historic Condition: Benches were designed by
Saarinen & Associates for the levee develop-
ment. 52 The proposed benches were 10 feet
long, two to three feet wide, and one foot
four inches high. They were composed of
limestone bench tops set on a limestone block
and a concrete base. A steel dowel was to be
threaded through the base, block, and bench
top to anchor it together (see Figure 4.29).
It has not been determined whether these
benches were ever constructed on the levee.
*v*3*
Vc*
^ ^
^=
^
Figure 4.27. Kiley-designed pond configuration (top) National Park Service
as-built pond configuration, c. 1996 (bottom). (Gregg Bleam, 1996)
fc> ^
Figure 4.28. Kiley-designed planting plan at ponds (top) National Park Service
as-built planting plans at ponds (bottom), c. 1996. (Gregg Bleam, 1996)
JEFFERSON NATIONAL EXPANSION MEMORIAL CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT
ANALYSIS AND EVALUATION / 4-35
Concrete benches were later designed for the
Memorial by NPS Western Service Center
landscape architect John Ronscavage (see
see Figure 4.3o). 53 The size and construction
specifications for the benches matched the
design specifications proposed by Saarinen &
Associates; however, the material was changed
from limestone to concrete. These were
constructed during the two major phases of
landscape development. Seven benches were
constructed on the east side of each rest area
during the first phase of development and
seven more at each rest area on the west side
during phase two.
Four more benches, similar in design to the
ones described above, were installed on the
landings of the grand staircase. Another type
of bench, black metal pipe frame with cast
iron slats, was installed at an unknown date in
Luther Ely Smith Square, but was subsequently
replaced with recycled-plastic park benches.
Existing Condition: There are now more than
70 concrete benches of the Saarinen design in
the Memorial; many have been added since
1996. There are no longer benches on the
grand staircase landings. Numerous concrete
benches are grouped around the perimeter of
the entrance ramps at the Gateway Arch legs
as a security measure and to meet a need for
seating near the entrances.
Analysis: Contributing.
The existing benches are the same design as
the benches proposed by Saarinen for the
levee and therefore they are contributing.
Although the material was changed, the size
and construction specifications were retained
and therefore the benches reflect Saarinen's
design intent. The number of benches and
their locations have also been altered, but these
can be considered reversible conditions.
Lighting
Historic Condition: A large lighting standard
detail, consisting of a 27-foot single pole
and shaded six-foot-wide luminaire, was
recommended by Saarinen & Associates,
although proposed locations were not identi-
fied. 54 However, plans and specifications for
different lighting standards were prepared by
NPS designers at the Denver Service Center
(see Figure 4.31). 55 The implemented lighting
standards were modern in style, 12-foot-tall
single poles of brown-painted aluminum with
a single 21-inch-diameter globe. The standards
were placed 12 inches from the edge of the
sidewalks, between the trees, approximately
90 feet apart. The lighting was installed in two
phases: in 1974 on the north-south axis, and
between 1980 and 1981 on the northwest and
southwest walks.
Existing Condition: The light standards and
luminaires bear no similarity to the Saarinen
design for lighting. They exist as implemented
by National Park Service, and are in fair condi-
tion. Memorial staff has identified the need
for replacement parts, bases, and replacement
globes. 56
In 2001, large spotlights were added to illu-
minate the Gateway Arch at night. They are
located within four in-ground light vaults
located beneath the Gateway Arch, two just
to the east and two to the west of the legs. The
underground vaults measure about 50 feet
long and eight feet wide. While the surface
area of the spotlight vaults is large, they are
minimally noticeable at a distance due to their
low profile.
Analysis: Non-contributing compatible.
Although the design for the light standards was
altered in implementation, these are modern-
looking and sympathetic in style to the rest
of the Memorial. The new floodlighting
beneath the Gateway Arch is low in profile and
relatively unobtrusive.
Trash Receptacles
Historic Condition: Trash receptacles were not
addressed on the Saarinen/Kiley concept plan.
Moveable, exposed-aggregate receptacles were
installed during the construction phases. The
exposed-aggregate receptacles have brown,
hard plastic tops. It is unclear whether the
receptacles were specified by the NPS DSC
or HB&A. in the mid-1990s it was noted that
there were more than 150 trash receptacles on
the Memorial grounds.
Existing Condition: There are approximately
85 trash receptacles in the Memorial grounds
today. The exposed-aggregate concrete
4-36 / ANALYSIS AND EVALUATION
JEFFERSON NATIONAL EXPANSION MEMORIAL CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT
CDWC &ASE
BENCH DETAIL /_J5
SCALE '5 •!'- 0" I4]'l4
■''- . --
!!--•
5f
'
-i
or- 6*wch
BENCH,, PLAN
SCALE ! 2 ■ l'- 0" \1
Figure 4.29. Eero Saarinen & Associates, Drawing SD-13, Bench Detail, 1960. (JNEM Archives, D-120-906)
— ' *$
, ■> # • ■ ■ ■' I ■ ■ ■» "» I ■ ■ ■ I
Jt=L
6rtiM *VW^eTRJCAi-Ae^OT 4.
V3 r^~^ — : — ^ar" 1- 1 : : ~ it ** M * T
*4 A Jrfo-C
i j sac h »ii.v
!£.&$=:
"Has
TceSC PUfcitTEO*
I -a- »A->e -tro-ug^S
DETAIL
^rt
is
L__J
_^s^i^?ere 1 T — - r ^ — ^1 — X L^
• [+-I- + — +4+-t- 1- + +-i- 4— t--
If* £j * OS2 W^Jfrl. , i- -I- -+--f- u -Aj- -> I- ■+- »--|- 4
i- 1-t- L
(-+ J- +■ t-H
. . . L J. .
j' . _ ,'-iVi*_L_i-i; ; I'm 1 !—. - 4'-^ -
... -- lUJiaHjJJ,' ! - i. T-
PLAN
/
.1^ 3'_ -_T^W.
pav£m^4T p&tails
---.v.; -.uc
«*
iti
Ji'f
if, t *._
'/13
*Z* irj
wA,c* £1
4 \QO~fA
sjiiWAVTi
Figure 4.30. NFS Drawing 366/41009 A, Bench Detail, May 1971. (JNEM Archives, D-120-1207)
JEFFERSON NATIONAL EXPANSION MEMORIAL CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT
ANALYSIS AND EVALUATION / 4-37
receptacles are mostly in fair to good condi-
tion; about 25 percent of the total number of
receptacles are in poor condition and need to
be replaced.
Analysis: Non-contributing incompatible.
These trash receptacles are unrelated to the
Saarinen/Kiley design. Although the existing
trash receptacles are functional, they are some-
what intrusive due to their size and number;
in addition, they are not designed to manage
cigarette butts, resulting in a maintenance
problem.
Drinking Fountains
Historic Condition: Drinking fountains were
not addressed by Saarinen/Kiley. The drinking
fountains were designed by HB&A and
installed during the two landscape construc-
tion phases. They are located on the east side
of the Gateway Arch at the north and south,
and at both of the rest areas, as well as near the
north and south overlooks. The fountains are
of exposed aggregate and match the material of
the sidewalks.
Existing Condition: The drinking fountains are
in fair condition. At some point new acces-
sible fountains were installed, also of exposed
aggregate.
Analysis: Non-contributing compatible.
The drinking fountains do not relate to
the Saarinen/Kiley plan, and so are non-
contributing. However, the fountain designs,
materials, scale, and locations are relatively
unobtrusive within the landscape.
Kiosk
Historic Condition: The kiosk was constructed
in 1986 upon completion of the parking garage.
It was constructed of sandblasted, pre-cast
concrete. The kiosk is a three-sided structure,
measuring eight feet eight inches on each side
with a four-foot-square bulletin board and
changeable letter board."
Existing Condition: The kiosk is in good condi-
tion, although the letter board is not optimally
used.
Analysis: Non-contributing compatible.
The kiosk does not relate to the Saarinen/Kiley
concept and therefore it is non-contributing.
However, it is a relatively small feature with
materials and form that are sympathetic to
the design of the landscape. In addition, the
structure is not visually intrusive.
Entrance Signs
Historic Condition: Signs were not addressed
on the Saarinen/Kiley concept plan. Temporary
signs were located along Memorial Drive
during construction of the Gateway Arch. A
National Park Service entrance sign was placed
at the corner of Chestnut Street and Memorial
Drive after the completion of the Gateway
Arch (date unknown). The sign measured four
by 10 feet and was painted grey with brown
lettering. Similar signs were attached to the
wrought iron fence surrounding the Old
Courthouse at the northwest and southeast
Existing Condition: Twelve entrance signs are
now located in the Memorial, with one at each
entrance to the grounds. Mounted on four-
inch-square posts set in concrete footings, the
signs are similar to past signs, measuring four
by 10 feet, painted grey with brown lettering
and a NPS emblem.
Analysis: Non- contributing incompatible.
The signs do not relate to the Saarinen/
Kiley concept plan and therefore they are
non-contributing. Although the signs are
functionally important, the existing ones are
not in keeping with the site's character, and
are somewhat intrusive. New signs are in the
process of being designed and approved.
Care is being taken that these signs are more
compatible with the Saarinen/Kiley landscape.
Chain-Link Fences
Historic Condition: Fences were not addressed
in the Saarinen/Kiley concept plan. Chain-
link fences were installed around the railroad
tunnels and around the north and south
service areas during the construction phases.
The fences were 48-inch-tall chain-link.
4-38 / ANALYSIS AND EVALUATION
JEFFERSON NATIONAL EXPANSION MEMORIAL CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT
^21"^
^
12
EST
WALK1ICHT FIXTURE
Figure 4.31. Comparison of Saarinen lighting detail (right) and NFS lighting detail (left). (Redrawn by
Gargar Chan from JNEM Archive Drawing Numbers D-120-909 and D-120-807)
JEFFERSON NATIONAL EXPANSION MEMORIAL CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT
ANALYSIS AND EVALUATION / 4-39
Existing Condition: An eight-foot-high green
vinyl coated chain-link fence surrounds the
maintenance facility. Some other fences, partic-
ularly around the railroad tunnels, have also
been replaced with dark-green plastic-coated
chain link, which is less visually intrusive. 58 The
fencing around the north and south service
areas is the original green vinyl coated fencing,
which is in fair to poor condition.
Analysis: Non-contributing incompatible.
The fences do not relate to the Saarinen/Kiley
concept. Therefore, they are non- contributing.
However, they are relatively unobtrusive and
are functionally important for the safety and
welfare of the public.
Irrigation System
Historic Condition: Saarinen/ Kiley did not
provide details of an irrigation system at the
concept or design development stage. The
Memorial's underground sprinkler system
was initially designed by NPS DSC landscape
architects and modified by HB&A. The system
was installed in phases which resulted in
problems with uneven coverage (some areas
were overwatered, others under-watered).
Improvements to the irrigation system aimed
at correcting the deficiencies were made in
1986, and the system was automated in 1991. 59
Additional incremental changes have occurred
as part of the Old Cathedral parking lot project
in 1994, the construction of the new mainte-
nance facility in 2002, the Luther Ely Smith
Square sidewalk and plant bed realignment,
the addition of bollards around the perimeter
of the Memorial grounds, changes to the water
supply conduit in 2006-2007, an£ l the renova-
tion of plantings along Washington Avenue in
2009. 60
Existing Condition: The existing system was
assessed as in fair operating condition in
1995; it was not reassessed in 2012. Adjusting
and repairing irrigation heads is an ongoing
maintenance task, and the individual irrigation
zones are quite large by industry standards.
Some of the sprinklers need to be adjusted
to eliminate watering the sidewalks and/or to
provide coverage where it is lacking. Some of
the sprinkler heads are placed too high above
ground level and are visible to visitors. 6 '
Analysis: Non-contributing compatible.
The underground sprinkler system does not
relate to the Saarinen/Kiley design concept.
However, it is unobtrusive and the system is
functionally important to the maintenance of
the plantings that are an essential part of the
designed landscape.
Tree Grates
Historic Condition: The Saarinen/Kiley concept
plan specified cobblestone ("levee block")
pavers surrounding the tree pits within the
sidewalks and in a two-foot strip along the
edge of the walks. This was one of the few
details developed in the Saarinen/Kiley plan,
and was intended to reflect the materials and
vernacular of the adjacent Mississippi River
levee.
The paving around the trees was implemented
in 1972 during the first phase of construction.
Because the cobblestone paving settled and
became uneven, the pavers were deemed a
safety hazard and were subsequently replaced
with cast-iron tree grates in 1979. However,
the tree grates also experienced settling and
unevenness, resulting in numerous tripping
hazards as well as causing damage to the root
flares of some trees. In the 1980s, a small
portion of the two-foot cobblestone border
was reportedly implemented on an experi-
mental basis, but the stones were removed
some time later.
Existing Condition: The tree grates exist as
implemented in the late 1970s. The six-foot-
square cast iron grates are very heavy and
difficult to maintain. Enlarging the holes in the
center of grates to accommodate tree growth
has resulted in some jagged edges; as the tree
trunks become wider, the grates are causing
damage due to conflict with larger root flares.
The uneven walking surface resulting from the
grates shifting creates a hazardous condition.
Analysis: Non-contributing incompatible.
The tree grates do not reflect the Saarinen/
Kiley concept plan (see Figure 4.32). Visually,
they are intrusive to the walks and contrast
with the intended design appearance indicated
by the specification of levee block.
4-40 / ANALYSIS AND EVALUATION
JEFFERSON NATIONAL EXPANSION MEMORIAL CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT
Joseph Pulitzer Plaque
Historic Condition: A memorial plaque
commemorating the location where Joseph
Pulitzer bought the St. Louis Dispatch on
December 9, 1878 was placed on April 10, 1947
in the sidewalk east of the Old Courthouse.
The plaque was placed by Sigma Delta Chi, the
National Professional Journalistic Fraternity. 62
Existing Condition: The plaque, which is
bronze and measures two feet four inches by
one foot nine inches, is in good condition.
Analysis: Non-contributing compatible.
Although the plaque was put in place during
the period of significance, it does not
contribute to the landscape significance of
the Memorial. The plaque has other historic
values, and therefore it is listed on the List of
Classified Structures. 63
American Society Of Civil Engineers Plaque
Historic Condition: The plaque, measuring
approximately two feet by 11 inches, was
located on the south entrance to the under-
ground visitor center. The plaque was awarded
to the Gateway Arch by the American Society
of Civil Engineers in 1967 for "Outstanding
Civil Engineering Achievement."
Existing Condition: The plaque appears to be in
good condition with some minor weathering
and patina.
Analysis: Non-contributing compatible.
Although this plaque may have other historic
value, it is not part of the Saarinen/Kiley land-
scape design and therefore it is non-contrib-
uting to the significance of the landscape.
FUTURE LINER -
-SQUARE GRATE -^
(5-11^4 EACH SIOE)\
NOTE: TREE GRATES TO BE NEENAH
MODEL R-8611 MODIFIED AS SHOWN
OR APPROVED EQUAL
-EXISTING REDWOOD CIVIOERS
A
EXPOSED AGGREGATE
CONCRETE WALK
Figure 4.32. Comparison of Kiley development of cobblestone pavers (top) and NPS as-built tree grates
bottom). (JEFF Drawing Number 3027 and JEFF Drawing Number 366/41037)
JEFFERSON NATIONAL EXPANSION MEMORIAL CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT
ANALYSIS AND EVALUATION / 4-41
Gateway Arch Plaque
Historic Condition: The Gateway Arch plaque
was dedicated to the people of the United
States for President Lyndon B. Johnson by Vice
President Hubert H. Humphrey on May 25,
1968. This plaque commemorates the dedica-
tion and is located at the north entrance to the
underground visitor center.
Existing Condition: The plaque appears to be in
good condition with some minor weathering
and patina.
Analysis: Non-contributing compatible.
Although this plaque may have other historic
value, it is not related to the Saarinen/
Kiley landscape design and therefore it is
non-contributing to the significance of the
landscape.
Lewis & Clark Plaques
Historic Condition: The overlook plaques were
dedicated in memory of Lewis and Clark on
August 24, 1973 by the JNEMA. The plaques
measure one foot six and 1/4 inches by one foot
four and 3/4 inches, and are made of bronze.
The plaque dedicated to Meriwether Lewis
was set into the south overlook bulkhead and
the plaque dedicated to William Clark was set
into the north overlook bulkhead.
Existing Condition: The plaques are in good
condition.
Analysis: Non-contributing compatible.
Although the plaques may have other historic
value, they are not a component of the
Saarinen/Kiley landscape design and therefore
are not contributing to the significance of the
landscape.
Luther Ely Smith Memorial Marker
Historic Condition: The Luther Ely Smith
Memorial Marker was dedicated on April 12,
1985 to commemorate Luther Ely Smith, a
local constituent who was instrumental in the
development of Jefferson National Expansion
Memorial.
Existing Condition: This memorial marker is in
good condition.
Analysis: Non- contributing compatible.
Although this marker may have commemora-
tive value, it is not related to the Saarinen/
Kiley landscape design and therefore it is
non-contributing to the significance of the
landscape.
Saarinen Memorial Plaque
Historic Condition: The Saarinen Memorial
Plaque did not exist during the period of
significance.
Existing Condition: The Saarinen Memorial
Plaque was placed in the sidewalk along
Leonor K. Sullivan Boulevard in 1989 by the
FAIA. The plaque is in good condition and is in
storage.
Analysis: Non- contributing compatible.
Although this plaque may have other historic
or commemorative value, it is not related to the
Saarinen/Kiley landscape design and therefore
it is non-contributing to the significance of the
landscape.
Flood Of 1993 Plaques
Historic Condition: The flood plaques were
added in the 1990s to mark the high water
point and commemorate the flood of 1993.
They are not related to the site's significance.
Existing Condition: The 1993 flood plaques
are set into the walls on the north and south
sides of the grand staircase. The bottom of the
plaques marks the height of the Mississippi
River during the flood of 1993. The plaques are
in good condition.
Analysis: Non-contributing compatible.
Although these plaques may have interpretive
value, they are not related to the Saarinen/
Kiley landscape design and therefore are
non-contributing to the significance of the
landscape.
The Old Courthouse Plaque
Historic Condition: The Dred Scott plaque at
the Old Courthouse was installed in 1999, with
a dedication ceremony on November 30 of that
4-42 / ANALYSIS AND EVALUATION
JEFFERSON NATIONAL EXPANSION MEMORIAL CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT
year. It was affixed to the reproduction cast-
iron fence on the west side of the building.
Existing Condition: This plaque commemorates
the 1846 lawsuit of Dred and Harriet Scott,
enslaved people who sued for their freedom
at the Old Courthouse. This ultimate outcome
of this lawsuit was a contributing factor to the
Civil War.
Analysis: Non-contributing compatible.
ASSESSMENT OF INTEGRITY
Integrity is the ability of a property to convey
its significance. A property must not only be
significant, but it must also have integrity. It
is the combined effect of all of the landscape
features that determines the overall integrity
of the site. The National Register recognizes
seven aspects or qualities of integrity: loca-
tion, design, setting, materials, workmanship,
feeling, and association. 64 To have integrity,
a feature need not possess all of these quali-
ties. The evaluation of integrity is somewhat
subjective, but it must always be based on the
physical form of the property in relation to
its significance. At the Memorial, this means
that the existing physical form must relate to
the conceptual design intent of the approved
Saarinen/Kiley plan in one or more of these
seven aspects.
According to the CLR Guide, "Historic
integrity is determined by the extent to which
the general character of the historic period is
evident, and the degree to which incompat-
ible elements obscuring that character can
be reversed." 65 In the case of the Memorial,
the historicity of existing materials is less
important to its integrity than the survival of
the overall design concept as implemented
in a form that still conveys the more abstract
intentions that are the most essential aspect of
its character.
Preservation is based in large part upon the
idea of authenticity. Traditionally, authenticity
is defined by the historicity of existing mate-
rials, and also by how the built landscape mani-
fests design intent. Particularly in Modernism,
tangible materials and craftsmanship (which
can be broken down into individual, replace-
able, or repairable elements and features) are
secondary to intent and vision of the totality
(manifest in a broad, holistic way that does
not easily lend itself to being subdivided into
features, elements, or parts).
In Preservation of Modern Architecture,
Theodore Prudon states that "Challenging
philosophical gaps occur when the physical
materiality of modern buildings is emphasized
rather than the visual character of the materials
and of the period of time in which they were
constructed." 66 For Modern buildings and
landscapes, Prudon notes, "In general it is not
just how much remains of the original material
that is important, but also how much of the
original design is recognizable and visually
cohesive." 67
Conversely, it is possible that additions and
accretions to a significant designed feature or
landscape such as the Memorial could become
significant or be considered contributing in
their own right; and that such alterations, if
compatible, would have little to no negative
impact on the integrity of the landscape. 68
As documented in the statement of signifi-
cance, Jefferson National Expansion Memorial
is significant for its commemoration of
westward expansion as well as its architectural,
engineering, and landscape architectural
design and construction. Although all aspects
of integrity are important, location, design,
setting, feeling, and association are the most
important aspects to consider in order to
evaluate the integrity of the Memorial.
The definition of all seven aspects of integ-
rity, and whether and/or why they relate
to the integrity of the Memorial follows.
The Gateway Arch, a resource in itself and
significant under National Register Criteria C:
Design/Construction, retains high integrity in
all seven aspects.
LOCATION
"Location is the place where the historic
property was constructed or the place where
the historic event occurred." 69 The Memorial
retains high integrity of location. The aspect
of location is very important to the integrity of
the Memorial landscape. The Memorial was
established in St. Louis at the original location
JEFFERSON NATIONAL EXPANSION MEMORIAL CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT
ANALYSIS AND EVALUATION / 4-43
of the first settlement of the town of St. Louis,
which was both the symbolic and physical
embarkation point of westward expansion, the
very reason for the Memorial's existence.
DESIGN
"Design is the combination of elements that
create the form, plan, space, structure, and
style of a property." 70 Design, with the excep-
tion of location, is the most important aspect
to consider when evaluating the integrity of
the Memorial. The Memorial landscape retains
high integrity of design. It is the result of a
major design competition and the work of two
masters in their professions. Although some
elements of the landscape were constructed in
ways that deviate from the original design, their
design concept was realized and is evident in
the character of the landscape as a whole.
The site design developed by Eero Saarinen
is evident today. The layout and siting of
the major structures, walkways, and other
features were implemented in a manner that
is in keeping with his design. The catenary
curve forms reflected in the railroad tunnel
entrances, walkways, undulating topography,
and overlook walls and stairs were designed
by Saarinen, and are a primary example of his
design philosophy — keeping within the same
"form-world" as the Gateway Arch. Other
features, such as the curvilinear pond edges
and the grand staircase, were not constructed
precisely as designed, but were implemented
using forms with the same general character, in
keeping with Saarinen's design intent.
Dan Kiley's planting plan, which complements
Saarinen's site design, was intended to define
and structure spaces with the use of a consis-
tent number of plant species. A limited number
of tree species each used in great profusion,
was meant to strengthen the site layout, create
a sense of enclosure along the pedestrian
walks, and create intimate spaces contrasted
with vast spaces around the ponds. This "forest
and meadow" concept was integral to the
landscape architect's intent.
Although it was implemented in a manner that
deviated from the original design concept, the
planting plan is possible to recapture. Major
elements including the allees along the walks
and the circles and groves of baldcypress near
the ponds are character-defining features in
close keeping with the design intent. In general,
despite some deviations from the concept, the
landscape today shows the underlying form of
Kiley's intent. Replanting and adjustment of
maintenance regimes can increase the integrity
of the plantings overtime.
SETTING
"Setting is the physical environment of a
historic property." 71 The Memorial retains high
integrity of setting. The urban character of the
surrounding environment has been retained
and reflects the environment as it existed when
the Memorial was designed and built. Although
materials and building styles have changed, the
concept of an open green space in the urban
center and on the Mississippi River reflects the
intent of the original designers.
MATERIALS
"Materials are the physical elements that were
combined or deposited during a particular
period of time and in a particular pattern or
configuration to form a historic property." 72
The Memorial landscape retains moderate
integrity of materials. Major constructed site
features such as the huge concrete overlook
retaining walls, the Gateway Arch entrance
area steps, and the railroad open cut walls and
tunnels retain integrity of materials. These
features, while varying in condition today,
are generally of board-finish concrete using a
large, golden aggregate, as they were originally
constructed. Concrete and stainless steel, key
materials at the Memorial, are the trademark
materials of the Modern design movement.
For some features, the existing materials do
not reflect a specific selection by the original
designers. However, the later NPS and other
designers who implemented the design
concepts strove to retain Saarinen/Kiley's
intent. For example, though the aggregate in
the walks was not specified by Saarinen/Kiley,
the walk layout and spatial quality achieved
with the use of these materials reflects the
designers' concept, and thus the later selection
of materials does not diminish the integrity of
this feature.
4-44 / ANALYSIS AND EVALUATION
JEFFERSON NATIONAL EXPANSION MEMORIAL CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT
WORKMANSHIP
"Workmanship is the physical evidence of the
crafts of a particular culture or people during
any given period in history or prehistory." 73
Workmanship is not the most important aspect
for the evaluation of integrity of the Memorial
landscape. However, the successful implemen-
tation of complex geometric forms echoing
the Gateway Arch's catenary curve indicate a
high level of workmanship for many features,
such as the overlook retaining walls, Gateway
Arch entrance ramps and steps, railroad open
cut walls and tunnels, and system of pedestrian
walks.
FEELING
"Feeling is a property's expression of the
aesthetic or historic sense of a particular
period of time." 74 Feeling is achieved when
physical features are present and together
they convey the original designers' intent. The
Memorial retains high integrity of feeling. The
concept of a forested park in an urban setting
is evident. The spatial quality resulting from
the interaction of the walk layout and the
densely planted single-species trees evokes
a feeling of enclosure and creates a human
scale contrasted with the immense scale of the
Gateway Arch.
ASSOCIATION
"Association is the direct link between an
important historic event or person and a
historic property." 75 Integrity of association
is high and is a major part of the significance
of the Memorial. The Jefferson National
Expansion Memorial commemorates the place
where U.S. expansion to the west began. The
Memorial is also directly associated with two
master designers who played a major role in
the modern movement of architecture and
design. The Memorial clearly is a result of their
vision, and therefore retains high integrity of
association.
SUMMARY
The Memorial landscape retains a high level of
integrity, and continues to convey its signifi-
cance as a nationally distinguished designed
landscape of the Modern period. Landscape
features that contribute to this significance
include the Gateway Arch; the Memorial's
overall landform and spatial organization;
views; the system of walks; the single-species
allees; ponds; overlooks; railroad open cuts
and tunnels; grand staircase; baldcypress
circles; screen plantings and depressed service
areas; the entrance ramps into the Gateway
Arch; and the concrete benches.
Some of the non-contributing landscape
features, while not of value in providing a
connection to the significant design of the
Memorial, are compatible with the landscape
and may be left in place or replaced. These
include the service and maintenance areas and
their retaining walls and plantings; plant-
ings along the street edges, east side slopes,
and pond areas; areas of lawn; Luther Ely
Smith Square features; the parking garage;
the Old Cathedral parking lot and sidewalk;
interior service roads; and small-scale features
including the lighting system, drinking foun-
tains, kiosk, irrigation system, and memorial
plaques.
Other features are non-contributing incompat-
ible. These features may have a negative effect
on the integrity of the landscape, as they are
visually intrusive or not in keeping with the
site's significant character. They should be
considered for removal or replacement with
compatible features. These include plantings
at Luther Ely Smith Square and the parking
garage; and small-scale features including trash
receptacles, chain-link fences, entrance signs,
and tree grates.
The site analysis and integrity provides a basis
for the treatment recommendations that follow
in Chapter 5 of this report.
The key action recommended in the General
Management Plan is the initiation of a Design
Competition to gather a wide range of ideas
for the revitalization of the Memorial. The
treatment of the Memorial landscape in any
of the proposed design solutions that emerge
from the Design Competition must retain and
enhance the character-defining contributing
features of the landscape that reflect the design
intent of Eero Saarinen and Dan Kiley, and
thereby preserve and enhance the integrity of
the Memorial.
JEFFERSON NATIONAL EXPANSION MEMORIAL CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT
ANALYSIS AND EVALUATION / 4-45
Table 4.1: Inventory Of Landscape Features
Characteristic Type Contributing Status
and Feature Name
Notes/Key Characteristics
Topography and Landform Contributing Sculpted landform as a whole is character-
defining.
Spatial Organization
System of walks and allees Contributing
Curving formal walks enclosed by uniform,
regularly spaced massing of trees are
character-defining.
Primary axis between Old Courthouse Contributing
and river
Principal organizing element of the
Memorial grounds.
Pond areas Contributing
Low areas defined by sinuous curved edge
of ponds, undulating topography, reflected
image of Gateway Arch in water, and
enclosure by trees.
Overlooks Contributing
Formal plazas and plinths intended to
serve as open viewpoints situated above
river and create finials of "pedestal" for
Memorial as seen from the east; mono-
lithic concrete structure designed with
catenary curve segments.
Luther Ely Smith Square Contributing
Forms an open foreground within the
formal axis connecting the Old Courthouse
to the Gateway Arch.
Old Courthouse block Contributing
Anchors the city end of the Memorial and
provides a contrast of scale and historic
texture to the Gateway Arch.
North and south service areas Contributing
Artfully concealed with limited visitor
access through a combination of
depressed topography and screen
planting.
Views and Vistas
View between the Old Courthouse and Contributing
the Gateway Arch
Major axial view of the "wide monument"
essential to conveying the Memorial's
character.
Vista along the north-south axis Contributing
Views of the "vertical monument" framed
by trees lining walks.
Views between Memorial and East St. Contributing
Louis
Views to and from East St. Louis, including
view from East St. Louis of Gateway Arch
set atop the pedestal of the grounds,
bookended by overlooks, and framing the
Old Courthouse and city.
Views around ponds Contributing
Views of Gateway Arch with reflection in
pond waters.
Views from overlooks Contributing
Views of Mississippi River, Eads and Poplar
Street Bridges, and views to Gateway Arch.
Screened views of service areas Contributing
Concealed by placement in topographic
depressions and surrounded by plantings.
4-46 / ANALYSIS AND EVALUATION
JEFFERSON NATIONAL EXPANSION MEMORIAL CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT
Buildings and Structures
Gateway Arch Contributing
Central focal point and source of
catenary curve segment or "parabolic line"
geometry found in many features in the
Memorial grounds.
Old Courthouse Contributing
Visual counterpoint to Arch; Old
Courthouse is a major element of the axial
arrangement of the Memorial.
Visitor Center/Museum of Westward Contributing
Expansion
Underground location permits large
museum to function at Gateway Arch
without competing with Memorial
architecturally.
North and south overlooks Contributing
Character-defining structures reflect
"parabolic line" in their curved floodwall
and staircase, monolithic appearance, and
open views of river.
Railroad open cut walls and tunnels Contributing
Walls and tunnel entrances conceal
railroad line in the topography; geometry
of concrete features reflects Saarinen's
signature catenary curve geometric form.
Grand staircase Contributing
Part of Saarinen/Kiley concept, though
details such as tread-riser relationship
were altered; still supports the main axis
and provides a monumental-scale access
to riverfront.
Maintenance facility Non-contributing
Compatible. Siting, massing, and low
profile are relatively unobtrusive and
sympathetic to the rest of the Memorial.
Parking garage Non-contributing
Compatible. In keeping with use identified
by Saarinen/Kiley for area, unobtrusive,
but not of same design vocabulary as
Memorial grounds.
Retaining walls Non-contributing
Compatible. Functional and unobtrusive
but not related to Saarinen/Kiley design.
Vegetation
General plant composition Contributing
General planting plan is similar to Kiley
design, but includes wider variety of
genera and fewer plants. The habit,
texture, and massing of plants define its
contributing character (not the species
themselves).
Single-species allees Contributing
The allees reflect Saarinen/Kiley design
concept of uniform planting with precise
alignment and close spacing along the
walks.
JEFFERSON NATIONAL EXPANSION MEMORIAL CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT
ANALYSIS AND EVALUATION / 4-47
Baldcypress circles Contributing
The form of the densely planted evergreen
circle with view of Gateway Arch across
pond exists as in original Kiley planting
plan.
Pond area plantings Non-contributing
Compatible. While plant composition
around te ponds does not reflect Kiley's
design concept of a limited plant palette,
forming distinct areas of abstracted forest
and meadow, existing trees and lawn are
not intrusive.
Railroad open cut and tunnel plantings Non-contributing
Compatible. Plantings have been altered
from dense screening to open lawn with
scattered trees.
Plantings along east side slopes Non-contributing
Compatible. Not densely screened by trees
as in Saarinen/Kiley plan, and some condi-
tion problems
Service area plantings Non-contributing
Compatible. Plantings generally reflect
Saarinen/Kiley concept of screening the
facilities from view, except where too
sparse at Maintenance facility; many of
the plants have also been replaced with
different species.
Street edge plantings Non-contributing
Compatible. Not the same as Kiley's
intended planting.
Lawn areas Non-contributing
Compatible. There is more lawn today than
was called for in Saarinen/Kiley plan.
Luther Ely Smith Square plantings Non-contributing
Incompatible. Intended to extend the form
of the plantings across Memorial Drive,
but are completely different tree forms.
Parking garage plantings Non-contributing
Incompatible. Unrelated to plantings in the
rest of Memorial and present maintenance
problems.
Circulation
Pedestrian walks Contributing
Walk layout reflects Saarinen/Kiley design
concept; their alignment is an important
organizing principle and character-defining
feature; the aggregate surface material of
the walks was not specified by Saarinen/
Kiley, but its continuous surface is compat-
ible with the design of the walks at the
Memorial.
Gateway Arch entrance ramps and Contributing
steps
Form of the ramps and steps are part of
Saarinen design; problems with steep and
slippery surface, however.
Perimeter roads Contributing
General idea of roads surrounding edges,
but not extending into or through the
main part of Memorial grounds in keeping
with original design.
4-48 / ANALYSIS AND EVALUATION
JEFFERSON NATIONAL EXPANSION MEMORIAL CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT
Old Cathedral parking lot Non-contributing
Compatible. Located on site selected by
Saarinen/Kiley, but no details relate to
their design.
Old Cathedral sidewalk Non-contributing
Compatible. Not part of Saarinen/Kiley
design, added later but in same materials
as existing.
Interior roads (to service areas) Non-contributing
Incompatible. Not too intrusive except for
segments constructed of light-colored
concrete.
Constructed Water Features
North and south ponds Contributing
Reflect the Saarinen/Kiley design concept;
shapes have been simplified but loca-
tion and design concept of the two
curving-edged reflecting ponds meets the
designers' intent.
Small-Scale Features (furnishings and objects)
Concrete benches Contributing
Concrete benches were designed by
Saarinen.
Other benches Non-contributing
Incompatible.
Lighting Non-contributing
Compatible. Modern-looking, not too
intrusive.
Trash receptacles Non-contributing
Incompatible. Large, numerous, and
unrelated to Saarinen/Kiley design.
Drinking fountains Non-contributing
Compatible. Relatively unobtrusive in scale,
materials, and location.
Kiosk Non-contributing
Compatible. Relatively unobtrusive in scale,
materials, and location.
Signs, entrance and wayfinding Non-contributing
Incompatible. No unifying design for these
features nor are they related to Saarinen/
Kiley or Modern design concepts.
Chain-link fences Non-contributing
Incompatible. Not related to Saarinen/Kiley
or Modern design concepts.
Tree grates Non-contributing
Incompatible. Not in keeping with
Saarinen/Kiley concept of levee block.
Maintenance problems, intrusive appear-
ance.
Irrigation system Non-contributing
Compatible. Unobtrusive and functional
underground system.
Joseph Pulitzer plaque Non-contributing
Compatible. Has commemorative value.
Saarinen memorial plaque Non-contributing
Compatible. Has commemorative value.
JEFFERSON NATIONAL EXPANSION MEMORIAL CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT
ANALYSIS AND EVALUATION / 4-49
Luther Ely Smith memorial marker Non-contributing
Compatible. Has commemorative value.
Lewis and Clark plaques
Non-contributing
Compatible. Has commemorative value.
Flood of 1993 plaques Non-contributing
Compatible. Has commemorative value.
American Society of Civil Engineers
plaque
Non-contributing
Compatible. Has commemorative value.
The Gateway Arch plaque Non-contributing
Compatible. Has commemorative value.
The Old Courthouse plaque
Non-contributing
Compatible. Has commemorative value.
4-50 / ANALYSIS AND EVALUATION
JEFFERSON NATIONAL EXPANSION MEMORIAL CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT
JEFFERSON NATIONAL EXPANSION MEMORIAL CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT ANALYSISAND EVALUATION / 4-51
Endnotes
1. National Park Service, U.S. Department
of Interior, National Register Bulletin 16A:
How to Complete the National Register
Registration Form (1991), 3.
2. National Park Service, National Register
Bulletin 16 A, 3.
3. National Park Service, U.S. Department of
the Interior, National Register Bulletin 22:
Guidelines for Nominating Properties That
Have Achieved Significance in the Last Fifty
Years (n.d.), 3.
4. Laura Soulliere Harrison, National
Register of Historic Places Inventory —
Nomination Form for fefferson National
Expansion Memorial (1985).
5. M.W. Newman, "Landscape designer wins
Brunner prize," The Chicago Tribune, May
18, 1995. This honor has been awarded
since 1898.
6. Theodore H.M. Prudon, Preservation of
Modern Architecture (2008), 35.
7. Aline B. Saarinen, ed., Eero Saarinen on
His Work (New Haven and London: Yale
University Press, 1962), 18.
8. Laura Souilliere Harrison, National
Register of Historic Places Inventory,
Nomination Form for fefferson National
Expansion Memorial (1985) said fefferson
National Expansion Memorial Gateway
Arch, National Historic Landmark
Nomination Form, (1987).
9. The winners of the competition were
not given assurance that they would be
employed by the federal government or
even that the Memorial would be built.
During the nine years of negotiations
with TRRA, Saarinen and Kiley were not
under contract with the government and
therefore moved on to other projects. It
was not until 1957 when an agreement was
reached that the federal government hired
Saarinen as architect for the Memorial and
he subsequently hired Dan Kiley to work
with him on the landscape plan.
10. The other designers included the National
Park Service Denver Service Center
(NPS DSC) and the firm of Harland
Bartholomew & Associates (HB&A).
11. National Park Service, U.S. Department of
the Interior, The Secretary of the Interior's
Standards for the Treatment of Historic
Properties with Guidelines for the Treatment
of Cultural Landscapes (1996).
12. National Park Service, The Secretary of the
Interior's Standards for the Treatment of
Historic Properties with Guidelines for the
Treatment of Cultural Landscapes.
13. National Park Service, National Register
Bulletin 16 A, 3.
14. Robert R. Page, Cathy Gilbert, and Susan
Dolan,/! Guide to Cultural Landscape
Reports: Contents, Process, and Techniques
(Washington, D.C.: National Park Service,
1998), Landscape Lines 3:4.
15. National Park Service, The Secretary of the
Interior's Standards for the Treatment of
Historic Properties with Guidelines for the
Treatment of Cultural Landscapes.
16. National Park Service, National Register
Bulletin 16 A, 3.
17. These distinctions have been employed
by the National Park Service in docu-
ments including Quincy Unit CLR/EA in
Keweenaw National Historic Park, and
Hot Springs National Park CLR/EA.
18. National Park Service, The Secretary of
the Interior's Standards for the Treatment
of Historic Properties with Guidelines for
the Treatment of Cultural Landscapes;
National Park Service, U.S. Department
of Interior, Director's Order 28: Cultural
Resources Management Guideline (DO-28),
Release No. 5 (1997).
4-52 / ANALYSIS AND EVALUATION
JEFFERSON NATIONAL EXPANSION MEMORIAL CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT
19. Mary Hughes, "Dan Kiley's Site Design
for the Gateway Arch," in Preserving
Modern Landscape Architecture: Papers
from the Wave Hill-National Park Service
Conference (Cambridge, Massachusetts:
Spacemaker Press, 1995), 30.
20. See drawing number JNEM 3019,
produced by Saarinen & Associates in
1962, copy on file in JNEM Archives,
Record Unit 120, Drawer 12, Folder 10.
21. Dan Kiley oral history interview with
Mary Hughes. Mr. Kiley took design
inspiration from the Tuileries in France
where the trees are spaced 12 feet six
inches on center. Some of his original
concept drawings for the Memorial
reflected this spacing, which the National
Park Service would not approve. The
spacing that was implemented — 30
feet on center, and closer in the rest
areas — follows the National Park Service
approved plan. Mr. Kiley was pleased that
the National Park Service followed his
ultimate design in terms of the spacing but
remained disappointed with the substitu-
tion of ash trees for the tulip poplar he
recommended.
22. Dan Kiley, "Jefferson National Expansion
Memorial," Landscape Design: Works
of Dan Kiley, Process Architecture, No. 33
(October 1982), 109.
23. Dan Kiley interview with Gregg Bleam
and Gina Bellavia. One source of disap-
pointment to Kiley was the elimination of
plantings around the ponds. He felt that
the planting was haphazard and did not
reflect the massing effect that he intended.
24. John Peter, The Oral History of Modern
Architecture (New York, Harry N. Abrams,
Incorporated, 1994), 201.
25. Peter, Oral History of Modern Architecture,
201.
26. For more detailed information regarding
the Arch construction and engineering,
see JNEM Archives, Record Units 103, 104,
106, and 120.
27. Midwest Regional Office, National Park
Service, U.S. Department of Interior,
National Register of Historic Places
Inventory -fefferson National Expansion
Memorial, prepared by Architectural
Historian Richard I. Ortega (Omaha,
Nebraska: March 3, 1976), 1.
28. During the early years of the Memorial,
prior to the completion of the Museum of
Westward Expansion, the Old Courthouse
served as a museum interpreting the
overall themes of the Memorial.
29. John H. Lindenbusch, Historic Structure
Report and Historic Grounds Study
(Denver, Colorado: Denver Service
Center, National Park Service, January
1982).
30. Sharon A. Brown, Administrative History
of fefferson National Expansion Memorial
National Historic Site, Part I (National
Park Service, 1984), 122; and Bob Burley,
oral history interview with Gregg Bleam
and Gina Bellavia, July 27, 1995. Mr. Burley
was an employee of Saarinen & Associates
from 1956 to 1963. The 1948 Competition
Drawing and other interim plans for
the Memorial showed as many as three
proposed museums, all above ground.
Plans were made to place the museum
under the Gateway Arch after the concept
of aboveground museums was aban-
doned, in part because of cost. Saarinen
welcomed the idea of eliminating surface
structures because they tended to clutter
the site and detract from the focus on the
Gateway Arch.
31. For more detailed information regarding
the Museum of Western Expansion,
visitor center, and theaters see Bob
Moore, Urban Innovation and Practical
Partnerships: An Administrative History of
fefferson National Expansion Memorial,
1980-1991 (National Park Service, 1994).
JEFFERSON NATIONAL EXPANSION MEMORIAL CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT
ANALYSIS AND EVALUATION / 4-53
32. Moore, Urban Innovation.
33. "Temporary Maintenance Building
Completion Report," copy on file in
JNEM Archives, unprocessed Rennison
Collection.
34. See early plans, Eero Saarinen &
Associates, copies on file at JNEM
Archives, uncatalogued collection. Parking
areas were planned for both the north and
south ends of the site at one time.
35. Brown, Administrative History, 121.
36. Moore, Urban Innovation, 13.
37. Moore, Urban Innovation, 16.
38. Moore, Urban Innovation, 13-22. Historian
Bob Moore details the history of the
construction of the parking garage as well
as the operating agreement among the
three agencies.
39. Saarinen, Eero Saarinen on His Work, 18.
40. Saarinen, Eero Saarinen on His Work, 18.
41. Bob Moore, telephone conversation with
Bruce Detmers, October 31, 1995. Mr.
Detmers recalled his own work on the
mathematics of the grand staircase design.
According to him, Eero Saarinen's design
of the staircase was to reflect a catenary
curve on its side.
42. Although details of the retaining walls
were not developed by Saarinen &
Associates, the proposed landform around
these areas clearly required retaining walls.
43. See the Site Physical History chapter of
this report for explanation and history of
this change.
44. Jim Patterson, Research Agronomist,
Center for Urban Ecology, correspon-
dence with the Memorial Superintendent,
September 25, 1995. Patterson visited
the Memorial to evaluate the soil condi-
tion and plant health/growth. He was
impressed with the condition of the
Rosehill ash. Other experts have evalu-
ated the single-species planting in the
past and have been equally impressed
with their condition and survival rate.
David G. Nielson, Professor Emeritus and
Consultant, Ohio Agricultural Research
and Development Center, Department
of Entomology correspondence to Jim
Jacobs, JNEM Gardener Supervisor,
November 3, 1992. James B. Hanson, Field
Representative, Forest Health Protection
correspondence to Steven Cinnamon,
IPM Coordinator, Midwest Regional
Office of the National Park Service, July 7,
1992.
45. JNEM Gardener Supervisor Jim Jacobs,
personal communications with Gina
Bellavia, 1994-1996. Jacobs felt that the
planting around the garage was an inap-
propriate and high-maintenance planting,
and that the planting should reflect the
other plantings on the site, and should be
more easily managed.
46. Moore, Urban Innovation, 126.
47. Architect Bob Burley, interview with Gina
Bellavia and Gregg Bleam, June 27, 1995,
transcript on file in the JNEM Archives.
48. Cooperative Agreement between United
States of America and the Archbishop of
St. Louis, February 23, 1961. Copy on file at
JNEM, Office of the Superintendent.
49. Gargar Chan, Civil Engineer, Jefferson
National Expansion Memorial, personal
communication with Gina Bellavia. Ms.
Chan determined the areas of the ponds
by using mathematical calculations and
the 1966 approved Kiley development
plan.
50. Dave Caselli, Park Engineer, Jefferson
National Expansion Memorial, personal
communication with Gina Bellavia,
December 14, 1995. Mr. Caselli deter-
mined the area of the ponds using
mathematical calculations and the 1995
Existing Conditions plan.
51. An examination of the existing topog-
raphy and the proposed landform suggests
that implementation of the Kiley design of
4-54 / ANALYSIS AND EVALUATION
JEFFERSON NATIONAL EXPANSION MEMORIAL CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT
the ponds would have required excessively
steep grades.
52. NHS-JNEM Drawing Number 3077
(dated 11-23-60), copy on file in JNEM
Archives, Record Unit 120, Drawer 23,
Folder 7. The drawing includes construc-
tion details for planting, pavement, and
benches on the levee.
53. Drawing Number 366/41009A (May 1971),
JNEM Archives, Record Unit 120, Drawer
17, Folder 2.
54. Saarinen & Associates Drawing Number
NHS-JNEM 3077 E-4 (December 9,
i960), JNEM Archives, Record Unit
120, Drawer 22, Folder 2. See also a line
drawing depicting proposed luminaires
along Wharf Street, found at Arteaga
Studios Ltd., dated September 11, 1963,
no. 639-11-3. It is unclear from this artist's
rendering whether the luminaires were
also proposed for the Memorial's walk-
ways.
55. JNEM Archives, Record Unit 120, Drawer
15, Folder 4. It is not known why the
Saarinen & Associates standard and
luminaire detail was not implemented.
56. JNEM OPR 10-238S, no. CO16/515, copy
on file in JNEM Facility Manager's Office.
57. WVP Corporation, Construction Plan
for Arch Parking Garage and Washington
Avenue Relocation (February 18, 1986),
Construction Details, Sheet A-16, copy in
JNEM Facility Manager's Office.
58. JNEM Gardener Supervisor Jim Jacobs,
personal communication with Gina
Bellavia, December 14, 1995.
59. Moore, Urban Innovation, 128.
60. Jacobs, personal communication, January
61. Jacobs, personal communication, January
2010.
62. U.S. Department of Interior, National
Park Service, List of Classified Structures,
prepared by Architectural Historian Dena
Sanford (1994).
63. The List of Classified Structures (LCS) is
an evaluated inventory of all historic and
prehistoric structures that have archeo-
logical, historical, architectural, and/
or engineering significance. The Joseph
Pulitzer plaque and a few other features
at the Memorial are listed on the LCS
as contributing features. It is important
to note that some features may have
inherent historic value that is not related
to the overall cultural landscape of the
Memorial, and therefore are considered
"contributing" on the LCS and "non-
contributing" in this Cultural Landscape
Report.
64. National Park Service, U.S. Department of
the Interior, National Register Bulletin 25:
How to Apply the National Register Criteria
for Evaluation (1991), 44.
65. Guide to Cultural Landscape Reports, 72.
66. Theodore H.M. Prudon, Preservation
of Modern Architecture (Hoboken, New
Jersey: John Wiley and Sons, 2008), 48.
67. Prudon, Preservation of Modern
Architecture,^.
68. Linda McClelland, "Evaluating the
Significance of Additions and Accretions,"
A National Register White Paper (May 20,
2008).
69. National Park Service, National Register
Bulletin 15, 44.
70. Ibid.
71. Ibid.
72. Ibid.
73. Ibid.
74. Ibid.
75. Ibid.
JEFFERSON NATIONAL EXPANSION MEMORIAL CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT
ANALYSIS AND EVALUATION / 4-55
THIS PAGE LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK
JEFFERSON NATIONAL EXPANSION MEMORIAL CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT
Treatment Recommendations
INTRODUCTION
The preceding chapters of this Cultural
Landscape Report discussed the history,
significance, and integrity of the landscape of
Jefferson National Expansion Memorial. The
recommendations presented in this chapter are
intended to
1) Provide viable approaches for future
management of the property;
2) Preserve the character-defining
features of the property which convey its
significance as a designed landscape, and
3) Incorporate necessary safety
and operational demands without
compromising the integrity of the design.
These recommendations are intended to
be part of the long-term planning for the
Memorial landscape, as described in the 2009
General Management Plan/Environmental
Impact Statement (GMP), and their
implementation may depend on budgetary
opportunities and other constraints.'
According to the National Park Service
Guide to Cultural Landscape Reports (1998),
a GMP "is the primary planning document
for determining the general treatment of all
cultural resources in a park based on cultural
and natural resource inventories. However,
many GMPs do not specifically address the
treatment of cultural landscapes." 2 The guide
states that the Cultural Landscape Report,
among other documents, can be developed to
provide this treatment information in concert
with the GMP.
The GMP envisions the Memorial
". . .revitalized by expanded programming,
facilities, and partnerships. The National
Park Service would capitalize on multiple
opportunities to expand visitor experience
throughout the Memorial. In order to gain
the widest breadth of ideas for expanding
interpretation, education opportunities, and
visitor amenities at the Memorial, a design
competition, akin to the 1947 competition,
would be initiated by the National Park Service
in close coordination with partners In
addition to considering the "winning" ideas
from the competition, the National Park
Service would continue the educational and
interpretive programs currently offered at
the Memorial and expand opportunities for
visitors to participate in more interactive
experiences across the Memorial grounds. The
grounds surrounding the Gateway Arch would
be managed in such a way as to accommodate
and promote more visitor activities and
special events than are currently provided.
The National Park Service would actively
coordinate with the City and State to enhance
the pedestrian environment around the
Memorial by developing a unifying streetscape
along the Gateway Mall and the other streets
adjacent to the Memorial, including Leonor K.
Sullivan Boulevard and the riverfront levee.
"The National Park Service would use the
design competition to seek opportunities to
enhance existing entrances to the Memorial on
the north and south, as well as to capitalize on
the primary axis between the Old Courthouse
and the Gateway Arch with new entrances
on the west and east and by establishing a
new east portal linking East St. Louis to the
Gateway Arch grounds by water taxi. The
competition would offer designs for a new
5.0
JEFFERSON NATIONAL EXPANSION MEMORIAL CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT
TREATMENT RECOMMENDATIONS / 5-1
external and internal visitor transportation
system. The ultimate configuration and use
of the south end of the Memorial would
be determined by the results of the design
competition. It is the agency's intention that
the maintenance facility remain in the current
location; however, the Memorial would
vacate the area if a design should emerge from
the competition that offered a compelling
program for the entire south end and could
assure the Memorial the same high quality
maintenance facility nearby. While the design
solutions might include the development of
above ground structures within a portion of
the designated Design Competition Overlay,
the National Park Service would not allow the
implementation of a project that would cause
impairment to the Memorial, and all of the
enhancements would be required to be located
in such a manner as to preserve the integrity of
the National Historic Landmark and National
Register Historic District."
The GMP Preferred Alternative is expressed
physically as a series of management zones,
which are descriptions of desired conditions
for the resources and visitor experience of the
Memorial. The zones are applied to different
geographic areas of the Memorial landscape,
identifying appropriate resource conditions,
visitor experiences, and types of facilities
that could occur in those locations. Five
management zones were developed for use at
the Memorial, including:
• Heritage Education and Visitor Amenities
• Original Landscape
• Orientation
• Streetscape/Riverscape
• Service
In addition, two Design Competition Areas
overlay the management zones. Design
Competition Areas indentify thresholds for
alterations that may occur as part of a major
design competition under way in 2010. New
features and elements may be added in these
areas, provided they meet the intent of the
underlying management zones:
• Design Competition Area A
• Design Competition Area B
These are described in more detail later in
this chapter. Generally, the GMP proposes
an increase in programmed activities on the
Memorial grounds, and improvements in
the physical connections to the surrounding
communities and within the Memorial
grounds. Both of these changes have the
potential to affect the cultural landscape and
the National Historic Landmark. Potential
design and planning issues include the
addition of temporary interventions such as
tents and event structures; increased need
for maintenance due to additional pedestrian
and vehicular traffic on paths and lawn areas;
addition of circulation features intended to
improve accessibility; additional signage and
interpretive materials; and new facilities and
structures potentially requiring additions or
alterations to the landscape.
There are four preservation treatment
approaches recognized by the Secretary of
the Interior: preservation, rehabilitation,
reconstruction, and restoration. These four
approaches are defined, and guidelines
for their application are presented, in the
Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the
Treatment of Historic Properties with Guidelines
for the Treatment of Historic Landscapes (1995).
Further guidance is provided in the Guide to
Cultural Landscape Reports (1998). Based on
the definitions of the four alternative treatment
approaches and the documentation and
analysis of the Memorial's landscape and its
character- defining features, the recommended
overall treatment for the Memorial grounds is
rehabilitation.
The goal of rehabilitation is to preserve the
portions or features of the landscape that
are significant, yet still allow for alterations
and additions necessary for efficient and
safe operation of the Memorial. Within the
framework of the overall landscape treatment,
recommendations for individual features are
made.
An explanation of the alternative treatment
approaches follows this introduction,
including a discussion of why rehabilitation
is the most appropriate approach for the
Memorial grounds. A treatment concept for
the cultural landscape is followed by general
and specific treatment recommendations.
5-2 / TREATMENT RECOMMENDATIONS
JEFFERSON NATIONAL EXPANSION MEMORIAL CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT
The specific recommendations for landscape
features are organized into three sub-sections.
The first, "Recommended Approach," outlines
the general approach for the specific feature
regarding goals for preserving character-
defining qualities of the feature. The second,
"Recommended Preservation Actions"
identifies specific preservation projects or
actions related to the feature, and guidance
for practices to employ in the process of
ongoing maintenance and repair activities
to ensure character-defining features are
preserved, and/or to enhance the historic
character of the landscape. The third section,
"Recommendations for Future Design,"
includes guidance and parameters for potential
future interventions that may occur in the
landscape.
At the end of the chapter is a section regarding
the unrealized elements of the design
concept: those features that were conceived
by Saarinen/Kiley, but never developed or
constructed in any form. These include the
fountains at the triangles; the pedestrian
overpasses connecting the Old Courthouse to
the portion of the Memorial on the east side
of Memorial Drive; and the extension of the
Memorial across the Mississippi River into
East St. Louis.
TREATMENT APPROACHES FOR THE
CULTURAL LANDSCAPE
Recommended Primary Treatment
Approach: Rehabilitation
The primary treatment approach
recommended for the Memorial landscape is
a rehabilitation approach. As defined by the
Department of the Interior:
"Rehabilitation encourages improvements
to a historic property that make possible an
efficient contemporary use while preserving
those portions or features of the property
which are significant to its historical or cultural
values. Archeological investigations may be
required prior to replacement of missing
historic features or projects involving new
construction. In rehabilitation, the entire
history of the landscape is retained for
interpretation." 3
After consultation with park managers
and staff and NPS landscape preservation
professionals, rehabilitation was selected as the
most appropriate treatment approach for the
Memorial landscape. This treatment approach
allows for future alterations necessary to meet
management needs and contemporary legal
requirements while preserving the existing
character- defining features. For example,
universally accessible design can be provided
in a manner which is sensitive to the original
design concept, yet conforms with the
Architectural Barriers Act (ABA).
Rehabilitation will help meet the goal of
preserving the design as conceived by Eero
Saarinen and Dan Kiley. It allows for the
retention of non-contributing compatible
features, such as the parking garage,
maintenance facility, memorial plaques,
and lighting fixtures; and also allows the
addition of compatible new features or the
addition of unrealized features found in the
Saarinen/Kiley design concept, such as the
fountains and pedestrian overpasses. Detailed
recommendations for the rehabilitation of the
landscape follow.
A key concept in the idea of rehabilitation is
compatibility. In the rehabilitated landscape,
one goal is to allow for necessary changes
while ensuring that those changes do not
detract from the character of the landscape or
diminish its significance by changing the site's
appearance in a negative way. In the future,
proposed additions (for example, designs
developed through a future competition to
resolve access and other issues) would be
carefully reviewed for their compatibility with
the character of the Memorial landscape.
Existing non-contributing compatible
features would either be retained as they are,
or replaced with new, compatible features to
support new uses with minimal detriment to
the integrity of the landscape. "Rehabilitation
improves the utility or function of a cultural
landscape, through repair or alteration, to
make possible an efficient compatible use
while preserving those portions or features
that are important in defining its significance." 4
JEFFERSON NATIONAL EXPANSION MEMORIAL CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT
TREATMENT RECOMMENDATIONS / 5-3
Other Alternatives for Treatment
Approach
The following alternative approaches were
determined to be inappropriate for the overall
treatment approach for the Memorial grounds.
However, they are included here because,
in the case of specific features, an approach
focusing more on preservation, restoration,
or reconstruction may be preferable. These
approaches are not in opposition to the overall
approach of rehabilitation, as rehabilitation
is flexible and necessarily includes more
fine-tuned treatments needed to maintain and
repair character-defining features, which in
turn supports the adaptive reuse of the overall
landscape.
Preservation
Preservation is not recommended as the
overall landscape treatment approach for
several reasons. The definition of "preserva-
tion" is as follows:
"The objective of this treatment is the
retention and protection of the historic
property's existing form, features, materials,
and spaces. In addition to ongoing
maintenance projects, preservation may
include the repair and limited replacement
of existing historic materials and features but
does not allow for substantial replacement
of missing features or new additions and
alterations. Preservation as a treatment, allows
for the interpretation of the evolution of the
landscape, not just one historic period." 5
Although on first consideration preservation
seems to be an appropriate treatment
alternative for the Memorial landscape, it
does not accommodate changes to meet
contemporary needs or new legal codes, nor
does it recognize the presence of intrusive
features that detract from the significance
of the landscape. However, as an approach
to specific character-defining features,
preservation, with its focus on ongoing
maintenance, repair, and limited replacement
may be the most appropriate course of action.
Restoration
Restoration is not recommended as the
primary treatment approach. The definition of
"restoration" is as follows:
"The goal of restoration is to depict the
landscape as it appeared at an earlier time
during its period of greatest significance. This
is usually accomplished through the removal
of later historic features constructed after the
restoration period, or the addition of missing
historic features in order to recreate the
appearance of the landscape at a particular
period of time. In this treatment, only the
restoration period is interpreted." 6
Restoration of the landscape is not an
appropriate treatment alternative because the
landscape retains much of its integrity. This
alternative was considered inappropriate for
overall treatment, since the goal of restoration
is to depict the landscape as it appeared at an
earlier time. The Memorial landscape does
not have missing historic features in need of
restoration, nor is there a specific date that best
represents the significance of the landscape.
Further, as noted in the significance statement
and assessment of integrity in Chapter 4,
material is of secondary importance in
Modern design, with the conceptual aspects
of design expression (geometry, overall form,
and abstract association) conveying more
significance than material and detail, which are
a focus of traditional restoration activities.
Reconstruction
Since the Memorial landscape retains much
of its integrity, and reflects the Saarinen/Kiley
vision, reconstruction cannot be considered
a viable overall approach. As with restora-
tion, there are no "missing historic features"
per se. However, in the case of certain
existing constructed character-defining
features, particularly structures such as the
overlooks, ponds, or walks, it is desirable to
maintain them in a state that reflects their
designed intent as part of this unified modern
landscape. It is possible that, in the future,
reconstruction of one or more of these features
based on original designs may be necessary
and preferable to maintenance through
patching and superficial repairs. In specific
future preservation activities at the Memorial,
reconstruction may prove to be preferable to
restoration in this regard.
5-4 / TREATMENT RECOMMENDATIONS
JEFFERSON NATIONAL EXPANSION MEMORIAL CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT
TREATMENT CONCEPT FOR THE
MEMORIAL
The treatment concept for the cultural
landscape of Jefferson National Expansion
Memorial responds directly to current plans
for management identified in the GMP
Preferred Alternative and the Record of
Decision. The GMP Preferred Alternative
concept statement is:
"The Memorial would be revitalized by
expanded programming, facilities, and
partnerships. The National Park Service
would capitalize on multiple opportunities
to expand visitor experience throughout the
Memorial. A design competition akin to the
1947 competition would be held in order to
generate the widest breadth of ideas possible
to revitalize the Memorial grounds and expand
interpretation, education opportunities, and
visitor amenities."
Potential actions associated with the Preferred
Alternative are addressed below by the
corresponding GMP management zone.
Treatment Concept
In order to protect the integrity of the
Memorial grounds, the defined concept
for treatment of the cultural landscape
emphasizes the preservation and maintenance
of character-defining features related to the
Saarinen/Kiley plan. Other aspects of the
site may be adapted to meet contemporary
management, operational, and safety needs.
The Memorial's existing character-defining
landscape features are maintained through
active preservation maintenance, while
necessary alterations of existing features are
made and new features are added in a manner
that is compatible with the existing Saarinen/
Kiley designed landscape.
• Site planning and design: Future
design interventions at the Memorial are
envisioned to retain the overall site design
and landscape setting as developed by
Saarinen/Kiley. The arrangement of the
existing site circulation system, siting
of buildings and structures within the
grounds, and the subtle use of catenary
curve segments reflecting the form of the
Gateway Arch are retained and maintained
as character-defining features of the
landscape.
• Topography and landform: The
sculpted, curving topography of the
Memorial is retained and maintained. This
landform was conceived by Saarinen as
a designed feature used to control views
and movement, emphasizing the Gateway
Arch while subtly concealing maintenance
and service areas, Memorial Drive, and the
railroad. The landform continues to serve
this purpose, retaining its sculpted form in
the portion of the Memorial grounds east of
Memorial Drive. West of Memorial Drive,
the topography of Luther Ely Smith Square
may be altered to meet management goals,
as long as changes do not block the visual
axis between the Gateway Arch and Old
Courthouse.
• Views and vistas: Important character-
defining views to and from the Gateway
Arch are retained, maintained, and
potentially enhanced. These include views
between the Old Courthouse, the Gateway
Arch, the river, and East St. Louis; and
along the north-south axis of the Memorial.
Any development occurring on the East
St. Louis extension is undertaken with the
understanding that the view to the Gateway
Arch from East St. Louis along the primary
axis is important to the Saarinen design
concept. Secondary views to the Gateway
Arch from the overlooks, across the ponds,
and from along the walks in the Memorial
grounds are retained and maintained as
contributing features of the Saarinen/Kiley
designed landscape.
• Single-species allees: The use of
a uniform, single tree species to line
and enclose the walks is retained and
maintained, reflecting the Saarinen/Kiley
design intent and the simple "form-world"
of the Gateway Arch. This planting also
strengthens the formal qualities of the
pedestrian circulation system. The trees
remain closely spaced, retaining the
character- defining sense of enclosure along
the walks that contrasts with the vertical
monumentality of the Gateway Arch.
JEFFERSON NATIONAL EXPANSION MEMORIAL CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT
TREATMENT RECOMMENDATIONS / 5-5
• Use of limited palette of tree species:
The continuing use of a limited number
of tree species to define spaces somewhat
reflects the "forest and meadow" concept
envisioned by Saarinen/Kiley from the
beginning of the design competition, and
partially realized in the planting that was
implemented.
An inventory of individual landscape features
with notes concerning their relationship to the
Memorial's significance can be found at the
end of Chapter 4.
Landscape Treatment Concept by
General Management Plan Zones
This section details the treatment concept for
each zone described in the GMP Preferred
Alternative. These zones are intended to guide
long-term management to achieve appropriate,
desired conditions of the resources and visitor
experiences in each portion of the Memorial.
The concepts for landscape treatment provide
a broad vision for applying the preservation
approach described above in each of the
different areas of the Memorial landscape.
Recommendations relevant to the features in
each of these zones, and addressing related
GMP actions, are included in the detailed
recommendations later in this chapter.
Heritage Education and
Visitor Amenities Zone
The Heritage Education and Visitor Amenities
zone encompasses areas in the north end of the
Memorial including the north overlook and
the parking garage (shared with Orientation);
the area just north of the maintenance facility
on the south end of the Memorial; the under-
ground Museum of Westward Expansion
and visitor center, and an underground area
between the museum and Memorial Drive; the
Old Courthouse; and part of the East St. Louis
extension.
According to the GMP, this area's primary
purpose is to "provide visitor education,
interpretation, orientation facilities and
amenities." Activities in this area will educate
and convey interpretive themes to visitors,
and provide opportunities for interpretive
and educational programs. Facilities may
be altered or added if considered necessary
and appropriate to the Memorial and its
visitors. Typical facilities may include indoor
and outdoor exhibits, museums/library/
archives, classrooms, theaters, restrooms,
benches, visitor centers, transit facilities, food
service, and staff offices. Any new features
must be compatible, following guidelines for
rehabilitation. Changes in this area to support
management goals are expected to have
little impact on the NHL, and will preserve
character-defining features of the landscape.
Cultural landscape treatment concept
for the Heritage Education and Visitor
Amenities zone:
• Existing character-defining features are
retained and maintained.
• Existing buildings and structures are
considered a primary location for planned
new facilities.
• Additions or changes to existing
non-contributing buildings and
structures are appropriate, as long as
proposed alterations or additions meet
the Secretary of the Interior's Standards
for Rehabilitation.
• Alterations to the Old Courthouse
and its environs are limited to what
is necessary to support access, safety,
continued use, and educational and
interpretive goals.
• Substantial alterations to the north
and south overlooks are limited so that
the essential form of the overlooks is
retained. There may be opportunities
to utilize the interior space of the
overlooks.
• The parking garage site and structure
are considered as a location to
accommodate uses and functions
identified in the GMP that require
conditioned building space.
• The GMP states that a new west access
to the Museum of Westward Expansion
will be designed in coordination with
a rehabilitated streetscape at Memorial
Drive and enhanced connectivity to
5-6 / TREATMENT RECOMMENDATIONS
JEFFERSON NATIONAL EXPANSION MEMORIAL CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT
Luther Ely Smith Square and the Old
Courthouse, as well as the rest of
downtown St. Louis. Above-ground
alterations and additions to the Museum
of Westward Expansion and visitor
center are limited to providing barrier-
free access, meeting building and life
safety codes, and wayfinding. Any new
access to the existing or expanded
Museum of Westward Expansion
complex is designed in such a way as to
be subordinate to the primary visitor
approach and access at the legs of the
Gateway Arch. To accommodate the
historic design intent, it is preferable to
continue to orient and direct visitors to
approach and access the Gateway Arch
at the original entrances.
• If new site furnishings are required for
which a contributing, site-wide standard
exists, such as benches, that standard
is used to guide design and product
selection for compatibility with the existing
contributing landscape features. If features
are added for which there is not an existing,
contributing standard, such as lighting,
new features are designed as part of a
uniform site-wide standard that is either
very unobtrusive, or compatible with the
Modern aesthetic of the Memorial grounds.
• Any new features are designed and sited to
fit into and not disrupt existing character-
defining features. New features, such as
concession- and transit-related facilities,
are sited and located in such a way as to
not intrude upon the Memorial's central
purpose of evoking contemplation and
inspiration.
Original Landscape Zone
The Original Landscape zone encompasses the
majority of the grounds east of Memorial Drive
within the National Historic Landmark, with
the exception of the overlooks, parking garage
area, and maintenance facility area. A Heritage
Education and Visitor Amenities Zone has
been placed beneath the ground surface to
accommodate the existing and proposed
enlargement of the Museum of Westward
Expansion.
According to the GMP, the Original
Landscape zone's purpose is to "preserve
National Historic Landmark status." This
goal involves minimizing the changes to this
area to those needed to provide safe visitor
access and security, which are required to
be of "compatible materials, design, and
features." The entire zone will be preserved
and "maintained to evoke contemplation and
inspiration."
Cultural landscape treatment concept for
the Original Landscape zone:
• Change in this area is minimized, with
the landscape retained, maintained, and
repaired as required to reflect Saarinen/
Kiley's monumental vision and to ensure
that the Memorial grounds are "maintained
to evoke contemplation and inspiration."
All interventions for visitor access, security,
and program support are carefully planned
and designed to incur minimal visual and
physical disturbance to the landscape.
Creative alternatives requiring little or
no physical landscape alteration to meet
project goals are considered before new
physical interventions are undertaken.
Orientation Zone
The Orientation zone encompasses the parking
garage (shared with the Heritage Education
and Visitor Amenities zone), small areas where
the water taxi landings could occur at the
riverfront on both the east and west banks of
the Mississippi River, and Luther Ely Smith
Square.
According to the GMP, the priority for
these areas is to "provide visitor orientation,
enhance visual and physical connectivity, and
support Memorial operations (parking)." It
is envisioned as a transitional zone including
wayfinding, parking, and practical visitor
needs such as restrooms, benches, signage,
orientation exhibits/kiosks, transit facilities
including shuttle services and waterborne
transit, parking, and convenience concessions.
New additions to these areas are designed to
be compatible with the historic landscape.
JEFFERSON NATIONAL EXPANSION MEMORIAL CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT
TREATMENT RECOMMENDATIONS / 5-7
Cultural landscape treatment concept for
the Orientation zone:
• Existing character-defining features are
retained and maintained.
• New facilities and alteration of existing
facilities for the purposes of increasing
or enhancing connectivity and visitor
orientation are undertaken in ways that
are compatible with the character- defining
features and Modern design aesthetic of the
Gateway Arch and Memorial grounds.
• Smaller-scale orientation-related
interventions, such as sign systems and
kiosks, communicate the significance
of the Saarinen/Kiley design to arriving
visitors in ways that are compatible with the
character- defining features and Modern
design aesthetic of the Gateway Arch and
Memorial grounds. This is accomplished
through feature design as well as the
information they provide.
• Features within the primary east-west
axis of the Memorial grounds, such as the
riverfront landings and any new features in
Luther Ely Smith Square, are low-profile
and visually unobtrusive and do not
obstruct or otherwise impact the major
designed views along this axis.
• Existing buildings and structures are
considered for adaptive reuse and are
the primary location for planned new
facilities. Additions or alterations to
existing non-contributing buildings and
structures are appropriate, as long as
proposed alterations or additions meet the
Secretary of the Interior's Standards for
Rehabilitation.
• The parking garage site is an
appropriate facility to consider for uses
and functions identified in the Preferred
Alternative that require conditioned
building space.
• Above- or below-ground alterations
and additions to Luther Ely Smith
Square do not obstruct views from the
east or west along the major axis of the
Memorial. Retaining this designed view
is critical to maintaining the integrity of
the Memorial and the visitor experience.
The entire area of the square may be
redesigned. Below-grade or below-
structure facilities may be created to
meet the goals established for this
zone in the GMP. Increased pedestrian
connectivity via a pedestrian overpass
system that links Luther Ely Smith
Square with the east side of Memorial
Drive is encouraged as an appropriate
option. Consideration is given to utilizing
Saarinen's concepts for flyover bridges
as a guide to the design of a structure or
structures that are compatible with the
Memorial.
• If new site furnishings are required for
which a contributing, site-wide standard
exists, such as benches, that standard is used
to guide design and product selection for
compatibility with the existing contributing
landscape features. If features are added for
which there is not an existing, contributing
standard, such as lighting, new features
are designed as part of a uniform site-
wide standard that is either unobtrusive,
or compatible with the Modern aesthetic
of the Memorial grounds. New features,
such as concession, orientation, and transit
facilities, are sited and located in ways that
do not diminish the Memorial's central
purpose of evoking contemplation and
inspiration.
Streetscape/Riverscape Zone
The Streetscape/Riverscape zone includes the
street corridors surrounding all sides of the
Memorial, the Old Courthouse, and Luther
Ely Smith Square as well as the riverfront areas
on both east and west banks of the Mississippi
River.
The GMP states the purpose of this zone is
to "create visual and physical connectivity
between the city streets, riverfront, and
the Memorial." Goals include enhancing
the "urban interface of the Memorial and
to create a visual and physical thematic
identity compatible with the National
Historic Landmark." Rehabilitation is the
approach in this area, permitting addition of
site enhancements aimed at revitalizing the
street edge and riverfront and reconnecting
5-8 / TREATMENT RECOMMENDATIONS
JEFFERSON NATIONAL EXPANSION MEMORIAL CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT
to the surrounding city, including "formal,
pedestrian-oriented avenues and/or riverfronts
the visitor passes through when approaching,
entering, leaving, or walking by the Memorial."
The visual character of the Memorial
is enhanced, and pedestrian safety and
enjoyment are priorities. Compatible additions
to this area may include lighting, signage,
wayside exhibits, planting, accessible walks,
site furnishings, and limited or temporary
food service, tour, and convenience services.
Options identified in the GMP for increasing
connectivity include closing one or three
blocks of Memorial Drive at Luther Ely Smith
Square, a pedestrian crossing or "lid" over I-70
on Memorial Drive, and pedestrian flyover
bridge or bridges over Memorial Drive at
Luther Ely Smith Square.
Cultural landscape treatment concept for
the Streetscape/Riverscape zone:
• This management zone is rehabilitated to
provide improved pedestrian connections
to areas surrounding the Memorial.
The new connections are designed to
communicate the Memorial's design
significance, utilizing compatible materials
and patterns, and providing views into
the Memorial grounds. New elements
are not highly visible and do not disrupt
views within the Memorial grounds.
Non-contributing, non-compatible vertical
elements along the streets (such as utility
poles and lines) are placed underground or
replaced with compatible features. Existing
entrances to the Memorial grounds are
revitalized, and their use is increased due
to improved access across perimeter roads.
No new perimeter entrances or major walks
are added within the Memorial grounds.
Service Zone
The GMP's Service zone encompasses the Old
Cathedral parking lot and the maintenance
facility. The GMP describes this zone's priority
use as support for Memorial operations,
and states that it is subservient to the overall
Memorial significance and purpose. Actions
in this zone to support management goals are
intended to have little impact on the National
Historic Landmark, and preserve the contrib-
uting features of the landscape. The existing
non-contributing features are expected to
remain in place in this zone, and necessary
compatible additions to these areas support
operations, administration, maintenance,
parking, or security checkpoints.
Cultural landscape treatment concept for
the Service zone:
• The maintenance facility is retained, and
screened from the surrounding landscape
in the spirit of Saarinen/Kiley's approach
to service functions. Any new additions in
these areas are screened from the rest of the
Memorial grounds.
• The parking lot at the Old Cathedral is
managed in such a way as to not make a
visual impact on the rest of the Memorial
landscape. New interventions may have
a character that is similar to or different
from the character of the abutting new
rehabilitated streetscape design.
Design Competition Areas
In the GMP, two design competition areas, A
and B, overlay the management zones. Design
Competition Area A includes the streets
surrounding the Memorial, Luther Ely Smith
Square, an area on the east side of Memorial
Drive across from the square, the parking
garage and maintenance facility surroundings,
and the East St. Louis expansion area. These
areas are envisioned as appropriate places to
accommodate more intensive design elements
while minimizing the impacts to the National
Historic Landmark and cultural landscape.
New design elements will support necessary
goals such as enhancing physical and visual
connectivity between the cities, riverfronts,
and the Memorial by introducing new features
to serve the educational, functional, and
orientation needs of visitors. Facilities may
include features such as interpretive exhibits,
museums, theaters, classrooms, visitor orienta-
tion, transit, food service, restrooms, site
furnishings, offices, streetscape improvements,
and parking.
Design Competition Area B in the GMP
includes areas within the National Historic
Landmark that are more sensitive to change
and are therefore more restricted in terms
of potential design alterations. The GMP
envisions sensitive design solutions that
JEFFERSON NATIONAL EXPANSION MEMORIAL CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT
TREATMENT RECOMMENDATIONS / 5-9
support connectivity and accessibility, and
serve the experiential needs of the visitor. All
new interventions would be required to be
compatible with the landscape and minimize
impacts to the National Historic Landmark;
they may include wayside exhibits, accessible
walkways, plantings, fountains, site furnishings,
and exterior lighting, among others.
It is important to note that various places and
facilities associated with the Memorial are not
included in the Design Competition Areas.
These include the Gateway Arch itself and the
broad expanse of ground beneath the Gateway
Arch in the central portion of the Memorial;
the Museum of Westward Expansion; the
grand staircase; the primary pedestrian
approach routes through the Memorial
grounds from the east, west, north, and south
to the Gateway Arch, and the landscape
areas located between these routes along the
north-south axis; the north and south ponds;
the railroad and associated cuts and tunnels;
the Old Cathedral and its immediate environs;
and the Old Courthouse and its immediate
environs. Most of these areas and features are
excluded from the design competition because
they include character-defining features
designed by Saarinen/Kiley, and their alteration
could cause the Memorial to be de-listed from
the National Register of Historic Places. Other
features that are not included in the Design
Competition Areas do not contribute to the
significance of the Memorial landscape. The
maintenance facility is not included due to its
recent (2003) construction. Also not addressed
is the I-70 expressway, including its lanes,
flyovers, and retaining walls. The National
Park Service supports removing or redesigning
some of the expressway features, but doing so
is not considered feasible within the time frame
oftheGMP.
GUIDELINES FOR REHABILITATION
Rehabilitation is considered the best approach
for treatment when repair or replacement
of deteriorated features is necessary; when
alterations or additions are planned to support
new or continued use; and when the recreation
of the landscape to represent a particular time
is not appropriate. According to the Secretary
of the Interior's Standards:
"In Rehabilitation, a cultural landscape's
character-defining features and materials
are protected and maintained as they are
in the treatment Preservation; however,
a determination is made prior to work
that a greater amount of existing historic
fabric has become damaged or deteriorated
over time and, as a result, more repair and
replacement will be required. The Standards
for Rehabilitation and Guidelines for
Rehabilitation allow the replacement of
extensively deteriorated, damaged, or missing
features using either traditional or substitute
materials. For example, Rehabilitation may
include replacing a crushed bluestone carriage
drive with a rolled aggregate finish or replacing
shaded-out understory shrubs with more
shade-tolerant species. Of the four treatments,
only Rehabilitation includes an opportunity to
make possible an efficient contemporary use
through alterations and additions; for example,
replacing tillage with permanent grasslands to
support a new system of livestock grazing or
introducing new turf management to a park's
open meadows to support sports field use. 7
"When alterations to a cultural landscape are
needed to assure its continued use, it is most
important that such alterations do not radically
change, obscure, or destroy character- defining
spatial organization and land patterns or
features and materials. Alterations may include
enclosing a septic system, increasing lighting
foot-candles, extending acceleration and
deceleration lanes on parkways, or, adding
new planting to screen a contemporary use
or facility. Such work may also include the
selective removal of features that detract from
the overall historic character.
"The installation of additions to a cultural
landscape may seem to be essential for the new
use, but it is emphasized in the Rehabilitation
guidelines that such new additions should be
avoided, if possible, and considered only after
it is determined that those needs cannot be
met by altering secondary, i.e., non character-
defining, spatial organization and land patterns
or features. If, after a thorough evaluation of
alternative solutions, a new addition is still
judged to be the only viable alternative, it
should be planned, designed, and installed to
be clearly differentiated from the character-
5-10 / TREATMENT RECOMMENDATIONS
JEFFERSON NATIONAL EXPANSION MEMORIAL CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT
defining features, so that these features are
not radically changed, obscured, damaged, or
destroyed. For example, constructing a parking
lot in a secondary meadow that is enclosed by
existing vegetation or installing contemporary
trail signage that is compatible with the historic
character of a landscape." 8
According to National Park Service Director's
Order 28 (DO-28), in the rehabilitation
approach:
• A cultural landscape is used as it was
historically or is given a new or adaptive
use that maximizes the retention of historic
materials, features, spaces, and spatial
relationships.
•The historic character of a cultural
landscape is retained and preserved.
The replacement or removal of intact or
repairable historic materials or alteration of
features, spaces, and spatial relationships
that characterize a landscape is avoided.
• Each cultural landscape is recognized
as a physical record of its time, place, and
use. Changes that create a false sense of
historical development, such as adding
conjectural features from other landscapes,
are not undertaken. Work needed to
stabilize, consolidate, and conserve historic
materials and features is physically and
visually compatible, identifiable upon close
inspection, and properly documented for
future research.
• Changes to a cultural landscape that have
acquired historical significance in their own
right are retained and preserved.
• Distinctive materials, features, finishes,
and construction techniques or examples
of craftsmanship that characterize a cultural
landscape are preserved.
• Deteriorated historic features are
repaired rather than replaced. Where the
severity of deterioration requires repair
or replacement of a historic feature, the
new feature matches the old in design,
color, texture, and, where possible,
materials. Repair or replacement of missing
features is substantiated by archeological,
documentary, or physical evidence.
• Chemical or physical treatments that
cause damage to historic materials are not
used.
• Archeological and structural resources are
protected and preserved in place. If such
resources must be disturbed, mitigation
measures are undertaken including
recovery, curation, and documentation.
• Additions, alterations, or related new
construction do not destroy historic
materials, features, and spatial relationships
that characterize the cultural landscape.
New work is differentiated from the old and
is compatible with the historic materials,
features, size, scale and proportion, and
massing of the landscape.
• Additions and adjacent or related new
construction are undertaken in such a
manner that if removed in the future, the
essential form and integrity of the cultural
landscape would be unimpaired.
The recommendations presented below
are organized by landscape characteristics
(topography, spatial organization, views
and vistas, etc.). General recommendations
regarding the overall management of the
Memorial landscape are followed by specific
recommendations related to each of the
existing landscape features described in the
preceding chapters.
GENERAL RECOMMENDATIONS
Accessibility
• If a new pedestrian access on Memorial
Drive into an expanded Museum of
Westward Expansion is considered, ensure
that it meets accessibility standards in a way
that is as unobtrusive in the landscape as
possible.
• Conduct further study of the need and
feasibility of providing transportation to
visitors from parking areas to the Gateway
Arch.
JEFFERSON NATIONAL EXPANSION MEMORIAL CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT
TREATMENT RECOMMENDATIONS / 5-11
• When planning barrier-free routes from
the Memorial grounds to the riverfront:
• Consider alternative methods of
providing access between the grounds
and the levee that require little or no
permanent alteration to the landscape,
such as accessible shuttle routes on
perimeter roads, or addition of elevators
or other conveyances within the
overlook structures.
• If ramps are determined to be the
preferable barrier-free routes, minimize
their impact on views of the Memorial
from East St. Louis.
• Design ramps in such a way as to
minimize impacts on topography and
landform.
Special Events
• A goal set in the GMP Preferred
Alternative is for the Memorial grounds to
accommodate special events and promote
increased visitor activities.
• Continue to protect the landscape by
working closely with organizations holding
major events at the Memorial. Prepare and
distribute written guidelines which outline
specific procedures and requirements to be
followed by the organizations, vendors, and
construction subcontractors associated with
special events.
Security
• When improving visitor screening at the
visitor center under the Gateway Arch,
keep security features within the structure
and avoid adding security features outside
around the entrances if possible. If not
possible, use the most unobtrusive siting
and design for the security features.
• If a new access is added to the Museum of
Westward Expansion near Memorial Drive,
consider locating security features at this
access to minimize their presence in the
area directly surrounding the Gateway Arch.
• Avoid placing security features in locations
that conflict with contributing features such
as trees or sidewalks, or within contributing
views.
• The GMP Preferred Alternative states that
Memorial perimeter security and public
safety issues will continue to be addressed
to the level required for an icon park. In
the design process, explore alternatives
to balance security requirements with
preservation of the visual character of the
Memorial and its physical fabric.
Partnerships
• Continue to consult with, and maintain
good communications with, the Terminal
Railroad Association (TRRA) regarding any
physical alterations involving the area of the
railroad tracks and their perpetual easement
along them, as well as long-term plans for
TRRA's holdings in East St. Louis.
• Utilize partnerships with local and
state agencies, adjacent landowners,
and stakeholders, such as the City of St.
Louis and State of Missouri, to educate
and inform partners and the public about
preservation values and the cultural
landscape of the Memorial.
• Form partnerships to ensure a continuing
discussion about the potential impacts
of any interventions or alterations on
rights-of-way or properties adjacent to the
Memorial grounds.
Documentation, Research,
and Planning
• Consider amending the 1977 National
Register of Historic Places Nomination
Form for Jefferson National Expansion
Memorial to reflect the significance of
the cultural landscape and its features as
identified in this report. The nomination
could be modified through the submission
of additional documentation to include
more detail about the significance of the
landscape.
5-12 / TREATMENT RECOMMENDATIONS
JEFFERSON NATIONAL EXPANSION MEMORIAL CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT
• Pursue the acquisition of copies of
original drawings from the former offices
of Eero Saarinen & Associates relating to
the Gateway Arch, now in the holdings of
Yale University Archives, for inclusion in
the Jefferson National Expansion Memorial
Archives.
• Maintain a "Record of Treatment" for
all landscape management activities.
This record should include photographs,
accounting information, narratives of
the work, conditions, contractors, and
construction materials. The information
should ultimately be incorporated into an
inventory condition assessment program
which links visual information with a
database for scheduling and documenting
cyclic and emergency maintenance
procedures.
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR
LANDSCAPE TREATMENT BY
CHARACTERISTIC
Topography
Landform of Grounds Surrounding
Gateway Arch
The designed landform of the Memorial
grounds east of Memorial Drive is a contrib-
uting feature. However, the grades are steep
in some areas, leading to increased erosion
and making it difficult to undertake regular
maintenance such as lawn mowing using riding
mowers.
Recommended Approach: Retain and
maintain the contours of the landform. When
controlling drainage and erosion problems,
explore alternatives that minimize alterations
to the landform. Any necessary alterations
should be compatible with the original design
concept of the sculpted landform serving to
conceal functional site features from the view
of visitors.
Recommended Preservation Actions:
• Minimize the visual impacts of erosion
control measures in highly visible locations
such as along the margins of walks and in
major viewsheds. For example, consider
using shade-tolerant, low-maintenance
groundcover plantings to stabilize slopes
too shaded or steep for grass.
• Consider drainage improvements
along walks and in areas where erosion
is a problem. However, avoid visually
prominent surface drainage interventions
that will alter the landform's simple curves
and unified ground plane; for example,
concrete-lined swales or major re-grading.
• Consult original designs, located in
the JNEM Archives, before undertaking
projects that could result in alterations to
topography, drainage, or landform.
• Consider ways to repair the drainage
problem along the west side of the railroad
cuts in order to preserve the retaining walls,
which are character-defining features (see
Buildings and Structures).
• Consider planting low shrubs and
groundcover on the less visually prominent
slopes to mitigate erosion and eliminate the
need for mowing.
• As part of other preservation actions
along the sidewalks, minimize soil erosion
to preserve the edges and footing of the
walk. Explore alternatives that retain the
essential character of the unobtrusive, dark
brown aggregate surface beneath the tree
canopy. Consider the option of installing
cobblestones or a similar material around
the trees and as a two-foot -wide border
along the walks, as originally proposed by
Kiley. While this design was never installed,
it may prove to be an effective erosion
control treatment.
• Consider adding structural soil in limited
locations where trees are completely
surrounded by concrete paving. These areas
have higher tree replacement rates than
other areas.
Recommendations for Future Design:
• When considering future design, avoid
alterations to the character of the landform
as much as possible.
JEFFERSON NATIONAL EXPANSION MEMORIAL CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT
TREATMENT RECOMMENDATIONS / 5-13
• When planning projects to repair and
manage drainage problems on steep slopes
such as along the railroad cuts, around the
ponds, on the west sides of the overlooks,
and around the parking garage, investigate
the impacts of any solutions on the overall
grading of the site before implementation of
repairs.
• Any interventions requiring grading
should be designed to be compatible with
the existing topographic character of the
Memorial landscape: its undulating form
echoing the Gateway Arch's curvature;
depressed areas shielding views of service
and operations areas; and its high points
providing orienting views of the Gateway
Arch, city, and river.
Spatial Organization
The spatial organization of the park is
based on a roughly bilateral symmetry of
features arranged around the east-west axis
of the Old Courthouse and the Gateway
Arch, perpendicular to the Mississippi
River shoreline. Features such as structures,
plantings, roads and walks, and topography
work together to define landscape spaces
which evoke a contemplative feeling and
contribute to the visual relationships on the
site. The spatial organization of the Memorial
grounds should be retained and, in some areas,
may be enhanced.
Recommended Approach: Maintain the spatial
organization of the Memorial landscape.
Recommended Preservation Actions:
• Maintain the visual connection between
the Old Courthouse and the Gateway
Arch, and the open expanse of lawn
without obstructions to preserve the feeling
of monumental space intended by the
designers.
• Maintain the north-south axis, defined by
the system of walks, as a series of enclosed
spaces. The allee planting along the walks
contributes greatly to the character of the
space. Management of the planting will be
discussed in more detail later in this chapter
under Vegetation.
• Consider the addition of denser plantings,
as well as a less diverse plant palette, around
the ponds. This new planting design would
help to achieve the spatial organization
that was originally intended for these areas
but never fully implemented. Specific
recommendations regarding plantings will
be addressed later in this chapter under
Vegetation.
Recommendations for Future Design:
• If new interventions occur at the
Memorial, locate them away from the
character-defining spatial features of the
landscape. Situate new features in the
area of the parking garage or maintenance
facility, on the East St. Louis addition, or
off-site, where they will not be visually
prominent or compete with views of the
Gateway Arch.
• Any new entrance or addition to the
Museum of Westward Expansion should
be primarily below ground, and not disrupt
the spatial connection between the Old
Courthouse and Gateway Arch.
• Place any substantial new facility
development in the Memorial in Design
Area A identified in the GMP, which
includes the East St. Louis extension of the
Memorial within its authorized boundary.
• Consider the addition of the plantings
that were eliminated during the initial
implementation of the planting plan in
order to strengthen the spatial qualities
around the ponds.
• According to the GMP, the Memorial's
maintenance facility will most likely remain
at the south end of the Memorial, which
matches the Saarinen/Kiley master plan
location for this function.
• If the south end of the Memorial is
proposed for a new use as part of the design
competition, ensure any new facilities have
a low profile or massing and are screened
from view within the Memorial, in keeping
with the Saarinen/Kiley intent for this area.
5-14 / TREATMENT RECOMMENDATIONS
JEFFERSON NATIONAL EXPANSION MEMORIAL CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT
• Visitor parking should remain at the
north end of the Memorial, in keeping with
the function for this area identified in the
Saarinen/Kiley master plan.
Luther Ely Smith Square
Luther Ely Smith Square is part of the main
east-west axis between the Old Courthouse
and the Gateway Arch. The square was
intended to be an integral connector between
the Old Courthouse and the Memorial
grounds, with single-species allee plantings
matching those across Memorial Drive. The
square was envisioned to serve as the west end
of a pedestrian overpass linking the Memorial
grounds to the Old Courthouse, although this
overpass was never implemented.
Recommended Approach: Retain the open view
corridor across the square connecting the Old
Courthouse and Gateway Arch.
Recommended Preservation Actions:
• Avoid changes and additions to Luther Ely
Smith Square that would visually interfere
with the character-defining views along
the axis between the Old Courthouse and
Gateway Arch.
Recommendations for Future Design:
• Luther Ely Smith Square presents many
opportunities for enhanced connectivity
within the Memorial, as noted in the GMP.
It also presents opportunities for extending
the vocabulary of the Memorial grounds to
the west, in keeping with the Saarinen/Kiley
concept.
• When adding features to support
visitor orientation and services at
Luther Ely Smith Square, consider
enhancements to the design of the
square that better visually and physically
connect the two sections of the
Memorial grounds. Luther Ely Smith
Square is part of the overall spatial
organization and forms an important
connection between the Gateway Arch
and the Old Courthouse.
• Avoid vertical features in Luther Ely
Smith Square that would interfere in
any way with the open view along the
Memorial's primary east -west axis.
• Consider planting the north and
south street edges of Luther Ely Smith
Square with rows of trees matching the
forms used for the allee plantings on
the Memorial grounds, as the intention
for the square was shown on the
Saarinen/Kiley plan. Consider using
a different species which is similar in
form (see Vegetation section for more
recommendations regarding plantings).
• See "Perimeter Roads" section below
under Circulation for recommendations
regarding the pedestrian overpass concept.
Views and Vistas
The design of the Memorial grounds is
centered on the axial arrangement of the
Gateway Arch and Old Courthouse. This
strong physical connection creates an
important vista between the nineteenth- and
twentieth-century structures and extends
across the Mississippi River to East St. Louis.
The great expanse of lawn beneath the
Gateway Arch accentuates this connection.
Specific views and vistas were designed to
enhance the visitor experience. For instance,
the north-south axis of the Gateway Arch
and the use of closely spaced trees on this
axis create significant contributing views of
the Gateway Arch from the north and south
teardrops, rest areas, and triangles.
Recommended Approach: Preserve and
maintain the important views and vistas of the
Gateway Arch including those along the north-
south and east-west axis of the landscape, and
those from around the ponds. Also consider
ways to enhance and retain open views to the
Gateway Arch and city from East St. Louis.
Recommended Preservation Actions:
• Retain and maintain the open view from
the Old Courthouse to the Gateway Arch by
avoiding the addition of any major vertical
features within this area.
JEFFERSON NATIONAL EXPANSION MEMORIAL CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT
TREATMENT RECOMMENDATIONS / 5-15
• Retain and maintain the teardrops and
triangles as lawn areas open and free of tree
plantings and furnishings to provide a vista
of the Gateway Arch framed by the allee of
trees.
• Retain and maintain views toward the
Gateway Arch from around the north and
south ponds, particularly the areas where
its reflection is visible in the ponds, and
where the Gateway Arch is framed by
baldcypresses (Taxodium distichum) from
within the tree circles.
• Retain and maintain periodic glimpses of
the Gateway Arch from around the ponds
by maintaining the existing topography and
by following the specific recommendations
regarding vegetation outlined later in this
chapter.
Recommendations for Future Design:
• Consider relocating street lights,
utility poles, highway signs, and other
non-contributing vertical elements out of
the view corridor at Memorial Drive within
the vista between the Old Courthouse and
the Gateway Arch.
• Avoid placing visually prominent or
intrusive vertical elements within the
Memorial's significant view corridors in any
new design.
• Enhance views toward the Gateway
Arch and the city from East St. Louis by
relocating or removing vertical elements
such as power lines along the waterfront
and providing vantage points for visitors.
Buildings and Structures
The Gateway Arch, Old Courthouse, Old
Cathedral, Museum of Westward Expansion,
visitor center, north and south overlooks and
associated plazas/floodwalls/stairs, the grand
staircase, and the railroad cut walls and tunnel
entrances are significant contributing buildings
and structures. The character of the landscape
is defined in part by these structures, most
of which have clearly designed features in
keeping with Saarinen's "form-world" for
the Memorial. Buildings and structures that
are non-contributing but compatible include
the maintenance facility, parking garage, and
the north and south service areas (generator
building and shipping and receiving). These
are typically the features that are sited in
low, screened areas as indicated in the
Saarinen/Kiley plan and, while they share few
characteristics with the contributing buildings
and structures, they are unobtrusive and thus
in keeping the intent of the designers.
Detailed recommendations for the Old
Cathedral and visitor center/Museum of
Westward Expansion are not addressed here.
Recommendations below are landscape-
oriented and do not include interior or
structural recommendations for buildings and
structures.
Recommended Approach: Retain and
maintain these buildings and structures. If
character-defining buildings and structures
are imperiled by structural problems, consider
reconstructing them based on the original
Saarinen designs, or rebuilding them as
implemented.
Museum of Westward Expansion
Recommended Approach: The GMP calls for
the expansion of the Museum of Westward
Expansion. Expansion is required to be below
ground, and must preserve the character of the
ground surface within the lawn areas.
Recommended Preservation Actions:
• When designing new pedestrian
access to the expanded Museum along
Memorial Drive, site the access and related
features outside of the character-defining
view within the axis between the Old
Courthouse and Gateway Arch.
• Consider Saarinen's original intentions for
visitor arrival at the Gateway Arch. Any new
access to the existing or expanded Museum
of Westward Expansion complex should be
subordinate to the primary visitor approach
and access at the legs of the Gateway Arch.
The historic design intent determines that it
is preferable to continue to orient and direct
visitors to approach the Gateway Arch at
the original entrances.
5-16 / TREATMENT RECOMMENDATIONS
JEFFERSON NATIONAL EXPANSION MEMORIAL CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT
Recommendations for Future Design:
• When renovating the Museum of
Westward Expansion to expand its size
and better accommodate its associated
functions, ensure that any addition remains
belowground in keeping with the existing
museum's design and Saarinen/Kiley's
intent.
• Minimize the addition of features
required to support underground facility
systems (cooling and heating units,
ventilation, etc.) and locate them in
unobtrusive locations, such as the current
service areas.
• Retain and maintain the entrance areas
and ramps at the Gateway Arch legs and
allow pedestrian access to them: this
access permits visitors to experience the
exterior of the Gateway Arch structure and
understand the historic entrance route.
• Consider obscuring views of new access
features along the historic view corridor
while making them visible along Memorial
Drive. This could be accomplished by
depressing entrances, locating them to the
sides, or on an oblique angle off the axis.
The current grading along Memorial Drive
at this location represents an incomplete
Saarinen/Kiley design because it lacks the
pedestrian overpasses.
• If a new access on Memorial Drive is
constructed, place any new visitor screening
and security facilities within it to limit the
presence of intrusive features within the
view corridor along the axis between the
Old Courthouse and Gateway Arch.
• Coordinate any new museum access with
other connectivity enhancements along
Memorial Drive.
Gateway Arch
Please refer to the Gateway Arch Historic
Structure Report for recommendations.
Old Courthouse
Recommended Approach: Retain and maintain
the Old Courthouse.
Recommended Preservation Actions:
• Complete a Historic Structure Report
and Cultural Landscape Report for the Old
Courthouse and its environs.
North and South Overlooks
Recommended Approach: Retain, maintain,
and repair these major character-defining
landscape structures, including their associ-
ated plazas, floodwalls, viewing platforms,
and staircases. Rehabilitate the overlooks to
support appropriate new uses. The horizontal
line of the top of the overlook walls — and their
symmetrical appearance framing the Gateway
Arch at its base — are important visual elements
of character-defining views of the Memorial
from East St. Louis.
Recommended Preservation Actions:
• Retain and maintain the overlooks,
including the symmetry and horizontal
line the structures provide in views from
East St. Louis; the existing geometry of the
structures, including segments of catenary
curves; their monolithic form; and their
function as vantage points for important
designed vistas to the river and Gateway
Arch.
• Undertake a structural analysis of the
overlooks to determine the root causes
and potential long-term solutions to the
drainage and structural problems evident
on the surface. Employ a certified structural
engineer, preferably with experience
assessing significant twentieth-century
Modern buildings and structures.
• Utilize the findings of the structural
analysis to develop a detailed
implementation plan for stabilization,
repair and long-term maintenance of these
features. This action should take priority
over plans to continue patching small areas,
an approach which has been undertaken
with little success over the long term.
• If a structural analysis determines that
retrofitting to repair drainage problems
is not a feasible option, consider
reconstruction of the overlooks, plazas,
JEFFERSON NATIONAL EXPANSION MEMORIAL CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT
TREATMENT RECOMMENDATIONS / 5-17
stairs, and/or floodwalls closely following
the original Saarinen/Kiley design drawings.
• In the process of repairing or
reconstructing the structures, phase
work (or resurface these features) in large
sections to avoid a patched appearance and
maintain the unified monolithic appearance
that defines their character.
• Consider strategies for moving storage
functions from inside the overlooks to the
Grounds Maintenance Complex or another
appropriate service area.
Recommendations for Future Design:
• Avoid alterations to the design of these
significant structures, specifically their
physical form, curved elements, monolithic
appearance, and designed broad vistas of
the river and Gateway Arch.
• When considering introduction of
new or expanded educational/cultural
facilities at the overlooks, explore options
for compatible additions. New features
should not block views from the overlooks
to the river or Gateway Arch, and should
be visually transparent, like glass, or as
unobtrusive as possible.
• Consider adapting the overlooks for new
uses by employing temporary or seasonal
facilities, such as tensile structures. Tent
anchor systems could be set into the paving
in an unobtrusive manner.
• Consider rehabilitating the interior spaces
beneath the overlooks that were originally
intended to be used as small museums, but
were later enclosed in concrete masonry
unit walls for maintenance storage. These
spaces may have limitations on their
potential functions. Consider using these
spaces to house appropriate educational/
cultural facilities identified for the overlooks
in the GMP. Remove the storage function
and concrete masonry unit walls, ramps,
and gates. Consult the Saarinen/Kiley
design drawings for information on the
intended appearance of these spaces.
Railroad Open Cut Walls and Tunnels
Recommended Approach: Retain and main-
tain the railroad cuts and tunnels and their
character- defining structural walls.
Recommended Preservation Actions:
Retain and maintain the north and south
railroad tunnels and open cuts. The form
of the railroad cut walls with their signature
vertical/horizontal catenary curve segments
and top of wall flush with the ground level
should not be altered.
• Monitor and manage the impacts of
surface drainage at the top of this wall.
• Retain and maintain the railroad tunnel
entrances with their curved portals. The
entrances have a decorative catenary curve
segment around their sides, a character-
defining detail.
• Consider (in cooperation with TRRA)
undertaking a structural evaluation of the
railroad tunnels and walls by a certified
structural engineer to ensure the features
are sound and to better plan for long-term
maintenance and repair regimes.
• Study design alternatives to eliminate
the drainage and erosion problem to the
west side of the walls, which will ultimately
adversely affect these important features.
Recommendations for Future Design:
• In future planning efforts, consider
alternatives — within the broader picture
of the overall Memorial landscape — for
improvements such as addition of minimal,
appropriate screening plantings and less
intrusive security fencing to conceal and
secure the railroad cuts in keeping with
the Saarinen/Kiley concept. Consider
cooperation with TRRA/Metro to
undertake any such plans.
• Avoid alterations to the topography
around the tunnels and cuts, or the form of
the walls/tunnels if new interventions are
considered in this area.
5-18 / TREATMENT RECOMMENDATIONS
JEFFERSON NATIONAL EXPANSION MEMORIAL CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT
Grand Staircase
Recommended Approach: The grand stair-
case is a contributing feature and should be
maintained according to National Park Service
policies and standards. The general layout,
alignment, location, and monolithic appear-
ance of materials are based on the Saarinen/
Kiley concept. The tread-riser relationship
and landings are not the same as the original
Saarinen/Kiley design.
Recommended Preservation Action:
• Retain and maintain the grand staircase.
• If the steps require repair, replace with
compatible materials that match the color,
finish, aggregate, and form of the existing
stairs.
Recommendations for Future Design:
• Retain and maintain the grand staircase's
general layout, alignment, location, and
monolithic appearance. These attributes
demonstrate its connection to the Gateway
Arch and fulfill Saarinen's goal of creating
a monumental connection between the
Gateway Arch and riverfront.
Parking Garage
Recommended Approach: Consider reha-
bilitation or replacement of this structure as
needed. Retain and maintain the qualities —
such as location at the north end of Memorial
grounds, the muted colors, and the low profile
massing of the existing parking garage — that
are compatible with the historic character of
the landscape.
Recommended Preservation Actions:
• Maintain amicable relations with
the Bi-State Development Agency and
encourage appropriate and prompt
maintenance of the parking garage.
• Retain the location, general massing, and
height of the structure.
Recommendations for Future Design:
• While the parking garage itself is not
necessary to retain, avoid changes to it that
would intrude on the adjacent landscape
within the Memorial grounds, such as
additions that increase its height.
• In the future, consider locating some
maintenance operations within the building
envelope of the parking garage; or consider
moving some functions off-site. Avoid
additions to the parking garage that increase
its footprint or vertical presence within the
Memorial grounds.
• Consider moving additional parking out
of the Memorial grounds and/or directing
visitors to park in nearby off-site facilities.
• When redesigning the garage, provide a
more pleasant visitor arrival experience at
the Memorial with enhanced interpretive
opportunities between the garage and the
Gateway Arch.
• Consider redesigning the garage to
provide a better visual and physical
pedestrian connection between the
Memorial and Eads Bridge/Laclede's
Landing.
• Retain visitor parking in the area identified
for parking in the Saarinen/Kiley concept,
at the north end of the Memorial where the
parking garage is located today.
Retaining Walls
Recommended Approach: Maintain the non-
contributing but compatible retaining walls
located in the depressed areas concealing the
north and south service areas. The walls are
important in maintaining the existing landform
as set out in the Saarinen/Kiley design concept.
Recommended Preservation Actions:
• Retain, maintain, repair, and/or replace
the retaining walls as needed to stabilize the
steep landform concealing the service areas,
and meet the Saarinen/Kiley design goal
for these areas, which is to make them as
unobtrusive as possible.
• Undertake periodic structural analysis
of the retaining walls to determine if they
require repair or replacement to fulfill their
function.
JEFFERSON NATIONAL EXPANSION MEMORIAL CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT
TREATMENT RECOMMENDATIONS / 5-19
Vegetation
Single-Species Allees
Recommended Approach: The allees are a
contributing landscape feature that defines the
character of the Memorial landscape. They
should be retained and maintained, including
the location and spacing of trees, and the use
of a uniform, single-species planting of tall,
relatively straight-trunked, deciduous trees,
creating a continuous canopy and sense of
enclosure over the walks. Maintaining the
Rosehill ash cultivar (Fraxinus americana
'Rosehill') in particular is not as important as
maintaining these formal characteristics.
Recommended Preservation Actions:
• The spacing and locations of the trees
should be faithfully maintained.
• Maintain the Rosehill ash trees in a
healthy state for as long as possible by using
accepted fertilizing, watering, and pruning
practices. Because a single-species (and in
this case, single cultivar) planting is a risky
approach from a horticultural standpoint,
the planting should be closely monitored
for ash yellows, ash borer, and all other
insects and diseases.
• If there is not a serious and immediate
threat to the health of the majority of the
Rosehill ash trees, continue to replace trees
in-kind as needed.
• As trees are replaced, consider renovation
of tree pits to ensure proper drainage and
function.
• Emerald ash borer has become a concern
in the Midwest. Measures are being
undertaken to prevent, mitigate, and/or
treat ash borer at the Memorial. See the
Memorial's Ash Management Workgroup
Recommendations and Draft Emerald Ash
Borer Management Plan for more detailed
information on ash borer control strategies.
• When the trees deteriorate to the point
that they are hazardous or losing their
natural form, they should be replaced
in-kind.
• If there is a serious problem (such as an
infestation of ash borer) that threatens the
entire ash planting, replace the trees with
an appropriate substitute tree, which could
be another variety or cultivar of ash; or an
appropriate new species, depending on the
type of threat.
• The new tree should be tolerant of urban
conditions, relatively pest and disease free,
and should be aesthetically comparable in
form, texture, and height to the originally
proposed tulip poplar (Liriodendron
tulipifera) tree. 9 If site-wide replacement
of Rosehill ash trees is determined to be
necessary, prioritize replacement trees
with a form as close as possible to Kiley's
intended design form (tall, straight, upright,
deciduous, and fast -growing). Consider the
originally specified tulip poplar and others.
• After selecting new trees by form, weigh
the different trees' hardiness and pest
susceptibility, as well as maintenance
requirements. Be aware that as a single-
species planting on an urban site with soils
of undocumented fill, no tree is likely to
perform ideally; plan maintenance practices
accordingly. Over its lifetime the Rosehill
ash planting has done extremely well
(aside from potential borer susceptibility).
Accommodations should be made for the
selected trees to be maintained at a higher
level of effort if that is required to keep
them healthy.
• When replacing the ash trees, phase
the replacement in a manner that is
least intrusive to the appearance of the
landscape.
• Retain the characteristic singularity of
form of this planting by utilizing another
single species for the allees.
• An appropriate replacement program
should be developed by a qualified
landscape architect, horticulturist, and/or
arborist.
5-20 / TREATMENT RECOMMENDATIONS
JEFFERSON NATIONAL EXPANSION MEMORIAL CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT
The following alternatives should be
considered:
1. Replace trees in the sidewalks (only the
trees that are surrounded by a tree grate,
cobblestones, or exposed aggregate
sidewalk) in-kind as they deteriorate
beyond repair. Do not replace trees in
the outside rows as they deteriorate; wait
until at least five adjacent trees need to
be replaced, and replace then in groups
of five or more.
2. Replace all allee trees in-kind as the
planting deteriorates beyond repair
(whether inside or outside the sidewalk).
3. If a new single-species planting is to
supercede the existing planting, develop
a replacement pattern that has a specific
rhythm. For example, starting at the
Gateway Arch legs, replace the first 20
trees with the new species, leave 20 of
the original species, replace the next 20
with the new, leave the next 20, and so
on. Two to five years later, replace the
remaining original species with the new
species, always maintaining a rhythmic
pattern. 10
• Allee tree replacement, if undertaken for
trees lining the walks in large segments or
throughout the entire Memorial, should
be coordinated with replacement of
deteriorated sidewalks and renovation
of tree pits. Renovation plans should
be developed by a qualified landscape
architect, horticulturist, and/or arborist,
and may include enlarging the root
space (using the entire space beneath the
sidewalk); removing accumulated sediment
and silt; and incorporating appropriate soil
amendments and drainage systems.
Recommendations for Future Design:
• Any alteration to the allee plantings'
essential characteristics (locations of
trees, and uniform qualities of single-
species planting) is not recommended as
it will result in diminished integrity of the
designed landscape.
Baldcypress Circles
Recommended Approach: The baldcypress
circles are character-defining vegetation
features and should be maintained as densely
planted, open-centered circles of evergreens,
with a gap at one point in the circle framing
a vista of the nearby pond and the Gateway
Arch.
Recommended Preservation Actions:
• Maintain the baldcypress trees in a healthy
state through use of accepted fertilizing,
watering, and pruning practices. Consider
the use of mulch and/or groundcover to
lessen potential damage to baldcypress
"knees" by lawn maintenance equipment.
• When the baldcypress trees deteriorate
to the point where they lose their natural
form or become hazardous, they should be
replaced in-kind in the same location or
very near to their original planting pit.
• If in the future, baldcypress need to
be replaced with another species (if, for
instance, an ash borer-type disease occurs),
the replacement tree should be a tall
evergreen with a soft-textured, dense form.
Recommendations for Future Design:
• Avoid alteration to the essential
characteristics of the baldcypress circles as
it will result in diminished integrity of the
designed landscape.
• Consider increasing the number of
baldcypress in the circles to adhere more
closely to the original planting plan for
these areas.
Pond Area Plantings
Recommended Action: The plant composition
and open space as it currently exists is non-
contributing and should be rehabilitated in a
manner that reflects more closely the original
design concept. Consider alternative planting
patterns that are more in keeping with the
Kiley planting concept of forest/meadow.
JEFFERSON NATIONAL EXPANSION MEMORIAL CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT
TREATMENT RECOMMENDATIONS / 5-21
Recommendations for Future Design:
• Limit the plant palette to approximately 16
tree species.
• Group trees in a manner similar to the
Kiley design concept shown on the 1964
plan, contrasting dense plantings of "forest"
with open areas of "meadow.""
• Maintain the basic concept of planting
canopy trees closely together with flowering
trees on the edges. A large, deciduous
canopy tree should dominate the "forest"
with flowering trees and other smaller
canopy trees inter-planted, particularly at
the edges. 12
• Maintaining a limited number of large tree
species to dominate the forest canopy with a
limited number of flowering species to add
interest of color and texture is critical.
• Native species of trees, shrubs, and
groundcover are preferred.
• Consider adding dense clumps of
baldcypress near the lagoons, to strengthen
the similarity of the character of this area to
Kiley's intention as shown in his planting
plans.
Railroad Open Cut and Tunnel Plantings
Recommended Approach: The railroad tunnel
plantings are non-contributing and present
an opportunity to be enhanced to reflect the
original design concept. Maintain existing
non-contributing plantings but consider
options for making alterations in this area to
reflect the original design intent of concealing
the railroad tracks from view.
Recommended Preservation Actions:
• Maintain existing plantings in a healthy
state through accepted fertilizing, watering,
and pruning practices.
Recommendations for Future Design:
• In the future, consider replanting in
this area to fulfill its designed purpose:
to conceal the railroad tracks. New
planting designs should be mindful of
any maintenance difficulties that were
presented by the original design (a result of
inappropriate species selection), which may
have led to its decline.
• Plantings should reflect Kiley's original
planting concept as much as possible,
but should consider substituting hardier
varieties of plants that have the same
intended form.
• Use an evergreen tree suitable for
screening. 13
• Flowering trees (species taken from
the limited plant palette suggested
above) should be interplanted between
evergreen trees to provide interest.
• Plant beds should be formed along
the steep slopes and planted with
groundcover.
• Original designs, located in the JNEM
Archives, should be consulted and future
design should be compatible with the
original concept.
Service Area Plantings
Recommended Approach: Rehabilitation of
the plantings may be undertaken to preserve
their buffering qualities. Maintain the original
concept of using plants to screen the service
areas from visitors.
Recommended Preservation Action:
• Maintain the plantings around the service
areas as needed to fulfill their screening
function.
• Consider modifications to the plantings
to decrease the amount of required
maintenance and to improve their screening
and soil retention function.
Recommendations for Future Design:
• Continue to maintain the black pine (Pinus
thunbergiana) around the maintenance area;
replacement with a similar species capable
of performing a screening function is
acceptable (the same species should be used
5-22 / TREATMENT RECOMMENDATIONS
JEFFERSON NATIONAL EXPANSION MEMORIAL CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT
for the screening function throughout the
service areas). Groundcover plants, such
as Bulgarian ivy (Hedera helix) as originally
proposed, should be replanted on the
slopes around the maintenance building.
Other plants, specifically the shrubs around
the north and south service areas, should be
replaced in-kind as needed.
Street Edge Plantings
Recommended Approach: Rehabilitation,
replacement, or alteration of the street edge
plantings may be undertaken to support
improvements to the pedestrian experience,
while allowing necessary street access and
maintenance (flood debris removal and snow
cleanup, for example).
Recommendations for Future Design:
• When changing plantings along the street
edge, maintain the permeable qualities
of pedestrian access and views into the
Memorial grounds.
• Plantings should be in keeping with the
plant species and patterns used throughout
the Memorial grounds.
Parking Garage Plantings
Recommended Approach: These plantings are
non-contributing and should be re-designed
and replaced in a manner compatible with the
character of the Memorial.
Recommendations for Future Design:
• In the future, replace plantings around the
garage with species that are locally available
and perform well in the existing urban site
conditions.
• Develop a new planting concept in
keeping with the Saarinen/Kiley design
concept by screening views to the garage
from within the Memorial landscape.
• Consider planting shrubs and
groundcover on the steep slopes around
the garage which are difficult to maintain in
lawn. 14
• Consider replacing garage area plantings
with a new design using the same tree and
shrub species found elsewhere on the site.
Lawn Areas
Recommended Approach: Maintain a mani-
cured lawn underneath the Gateway Arch and
in the north and south teardrops and triangles.
The quality of the turf under the trees and
around the ponds may be maintained to a
lower standard. Since lawn areas are most
important for their spatial quality of open-
ness rather than for the specific qualities of
the grasses (type, height, or appearance), and
were meant to represent the "meadow" in the
original design concept, consider alternative
ways to maintain and present areas currently
in lawn.
Recommended Preservation Actions:
• Although the lawn areas are important to
the current appearance of the Memorial
landscape and should retain a high quality
level to meet the expectations and uses
of an urban park, the seed mix and grass
varieties used are not significant, and may
be modified or replaced with other seed
mixes to better accommodate varying site
conditions. When renovating the turf, select
grass seed appropriate for the conditions of
the turf area in question.
• Maintain lawn under the Gateway Arch
and in the teardrops and triangle areas in a
rigorous manner, including routine aerating
and soil amendments to counter the damage
done by compaction, particularly as a result
of events.
• Although these areas are important,
consider that all lawn areas do not need to
be maintained as highly manicured turf.
Identify areas that could be maintained in
different ways.
• Comply with National Park Service
policies for use of native plants and
water use policies. Consider using native
turf-forming grass species that can be
maintained without irrigation in this
environment yet still accommodate higher
levels of foot traffic. Because the turf
JEFFERSON NATIONAL EXPANSION MEMORIAL CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT
TREATMENT RECOMMENDATIONS / 5-23
grass mix is not considered a contributing
element, the use of other grass species
would be appropriate.
Recommendations for Future Design:
• Consider growing taller grasses around the
ponds and on steep slopes, and therefore
mowing less frequently.
• If more directed pedestrian access to
the ponds is desired, consider mowing
pathways in taller grass areas to create
temporary, movable paths to and around
the ponds. Routes can be altered as needed
with little to no impact on the character-
defining features of the Memorial grounds.
This approach will reduce soil compaction
around the ponds.
Luther Ely Smith Square Plantings
Recommended Approach: In the future,
consider replacing the non-contributing
plantings in Luther Ely Smith Square to reflect
the unrealized design concept of strong visual
unity with the plantings in the rest of the
Memorial.
Recommended Preservation Actions:
• Plantings in Luther Ely Smith Square need
not be preserved in their current form or
composition. Maintain them as needed until
the area is redesigned.
Recommendations for Future Design:
• Plan any future changes to the planting
to strengthen and reinforce the square's
function as an open visual connection
between the Gateway Arch and the Old
Courthouse along the park's primary axis.
• Consider replanting the double row
of trees lining Luther Ely Smith Square,
which was meant to form a strong visual
and physical connection between the Old
Courthouse and the Memorial grounds
surrounding the Gateway Arch. Refer to the
original plan approved by the National Park
Service for specifics such as plant spacing. ' 5
• As the existing sweetgum (Liquidambar
styracifiua) trees deteriorate, replace them
with the same tree utilized or planned for
replacements along walks on the other
areas of the Memorial (the uniform single-
species planting).
• As part of any tree replacement, remove
and replace the crabapple (Malus sp.) trees
with a second row of the same tree that
is used along the walks throughout the
Memorial landscape.
Circulation
Pedestrian Walks
Recommended Approach: Retain and maintain
the pedestrian walks, particularly their form
and alignments, varying width, relationship
to tree pits, and curving edges. Because they
were intended to be a unified system, the walks
should be visually unified and not composed
of multiple kinds of paving and materials.
However, the exposed aggregate concrete
material itself is not significant.
Recommended Preservation Actions:
• Consider replacing the sidewalks,
preferably in large sections that are carefully
phased to maintain visual unity. Paving
materials should adhere closely to the
original design intention, presenting a
unified surface and unobtrusive joints.
• Replace deteriorated or broken sections
of walk in-kind as needed (currently, this
would mean all replacement would match
exposed aggregate concrete). The size
and color of the aggregate and concrete
should be consistent and match the existing
sidewalk material.
• Dividers at construction joints (two-by-
six-inch treated redwood strips) should be
replaced at the same time as the sidewalk
sections.
Recommendations for Future Design:
• Consider adding the cobblestone band
along the edge of the walks, as specified
by Saarinen/Kiley. Design this addition
5-24 / TREATMENT RECOMMENDATIONS
JEFFERSON NATIONAL EXPANSION MEMORIAL CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT
to improve drainage and lessen turf
maintenance along the walk edges.
• Coordinate sidewalk replacement in the
Memorial grounds with replacement of the
trees in and along the walks. Consult an
arborist and historical landscape architect
to monitor plans and implementation of this
process. For trees planted in pits completely
within the walks, consider ways to expand
the planting pits underneath the paving
to provide more root space and improved
drainage. Appropriate soil amendments and
drainage materials or systems should be
installed prior to sidewalk replacement.
Perimeter Roads
Recommended Approach: The exterior roads
define the edges of the designed landscape of
the Memorial grounds. The lack of vehicular
access within the grounds — with roads only
at the perimeter — is part of the Saarinen/
Kiley design concept. Increased connection
between the Old Courthouse and the rest
of the Memorial grounds is an unrealized
Saarinen/Kiley concept. The addition of
pedestrian-friendly improvements and other
street enhancements along the perimeter of
the grounds is recommended in the GMP, in
particular an improved crossing at Memorial
Drive. However, while the National Park
Service's jurisdiction extends across Memorial
Drive and Washington Street, these roads
are maintained by the City of St. Louis and
the Missouri Department of Transportation
(MoDOT).
Recommended Preservation Actions:
• Maintain partnerships with the City of St.
Louis highway department and MoDOT to
ensure that alterations and improvements
along the road corridors surrounding the
Memorial grounds are in keeping with the
character of the landscape.
• Explore strategies for placing power
lines and utilities currently on aerial poles
underground as street improvements are
undertaken to remove intrusions to views
along the Memorial edge.
Recommendations for Future Design:
• The GMP calls for improvement of
pedestrian access across Memorial Drive.
A one- or three-block wide portion
of Memorial Drive could be closed to
vehicular traffic, and proposals might
include one or two elevated bridges,
improved at-grade pedestrian crossings
across Memorial Drive, or a civic plaza and
"lid" above the depressed interstate.
• If designing elevated bridges, consider
the idea of constructing the pedestrian
overpasses illustrated in a set of alternative
concept plans conceived by Saarinen/Kiley
(see Unrealized Features of the Memorial
Landscape below).
• Design ground-level pedestrian traffic
improvements to direct visitors along
the street edges to enter the Memorial at
existing entrances at the corners of the
Memorial and along the main east-west axis
on Memorial Drive.
• When planning streetscape improvements,
consider minimizing and grouping related
features along the perimeter roads, such as
signs, benches, and lighting.
• Avoid introduction of vertically
prominent, brightly colored, or otherwise
visually intrusive new elements along the
street edge. Consider using neutral or earth
tones, matte finishes, and features lower
than eye level.
• If adding a civic plaza and "lid" above
the depressed interstate, design it to be
compatible with the existing vocabulary of
walks, site furnishings, and plantings within
the Memorial grounds.
• When adding features supporting
orientation, wayfinding, and pedestrian
safety and comfort along the street edges,
design these features to be in keeping
with the Modern design aesthetic of the
Memorial.
JEFFERSON NATIONAL EXPANSION MEMORIAL CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT
TREATMENT RECOMMENDATIONS / 5-25
Old Cathedral parking lot
Recommended Approach: Maintain the Old
Cathedral parking lot according to NPS
policies and standards. The size and location
of the parking lot is part of the Saarinen/Kiley
plan.
Recommendations for Future Design:
• When redesigning the lot to improve is
appearance and visual compatibility with
the Memorial grounds, retain its existing
location and size.
• Materials used in the parking lot should
be visually unobtrusive, particularly when
viewed from the top of the Gateway Arch.
Old Cathedral Sidewalk
Recommended Approach: Retain and main-
tain the Old Cathedral sidewalk. While it
is a non-contributing feature, this walk is
compatible in appearance and is functionally
important for visitor access to the Memorial
from the Memorial Drive bus drop-off and Old
Cathedral parking lot.
Recommendations for Future Design:
• If replacement or repair of this walk
occurs in the future, use a material
that matches the rest of the pedestrian
circulation system in the Memorial grounds.
Interior Roads
Recommended Approach: Maintain the
interior roads to the service areas. These are
non-contributing features but are functionally
important for park operations; their align-
ments are unobtrusive and fulfill the Saarinen/
Kiley concept of concealed service features.
Recommendations for Future Design:
• Avoid realigning the roads.
• If repaying is necessary, avoid use of
bright, light-colored, or otherwise visually
prominent paving materials.
• Consider using pervious paving or other
environmentally sustainable materials when
these roads are repaved in the future.
Other Circulation
• When planning a visitor transportation
system (such as a trolley or jitney) that links
visitor facilities within the Memorial as well
as visitor facilities outside of the Memorial,
design any facilities associated with the
system (such as bus stops, shelters, and
signage) in a way that is compatible with the
overall design vocabulary for the Memorial,
and in keeping with the site's Modern
design aesthetic. Related environmental
graphics and signage should be designed as
part of a unified site-wide system.
• When planning the seasonal water taxi
linking the east and west units of the
Memorial, design any landings or other
features within the view along the main axis
of the Gateway Arch to be as unobtrusive
and low-profile as possible. Consider siting
these features outside of the main axis.
Water Features
Ponds
Recommended Approach: Retain and maintain
the north and south ponds, which are contrib-
uting features that help define the character of
the Memorial.
Recommended Preservation Actions:
• Maintain the existing ponds through
regular maintenance.
Recommendations for Future Design:
• Consider alternatives for the installation of
an aeration system for the ponds to mitigate
the algae problem.
Small-scale Features
Tree Grates
Recommended Approach: Rehabilitate the tree
pits, including removal of the tree grates. The
grates are a non-contributing feature and they
create hazardous conditions for pedestrians.
Recommended preservation Actions:
• Remove the tree grates.
5-26 / TREATMENT RECOMMENDATIONS
JEFFERSON NATIONAL EXPANSION MEMORIAL CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT
• Rehabilitate and reinvigorate the tree pits
(also see Vegetation section).
Recommendations for Future Design:
• Consider replacing the tree grates with
levee block (cobblestone pavers) or a
similar material, based on the design
drawings for the walks by Saarinen/Kiley. l6
The replacement material should contrast
with the pavement in color and texture but
also allow air exchange in the soil.
• Pavers are the preferable replacement
material. They should be of a natural-
looking material, such as cobblestones, not
a refined material like brick or interlocking
pavers, and should be installed in a manner
similar to the original design detail.' 7
Acceptable materials also include solid
pavers that have the same color and texture
as cobblestones, but are three inches
square by seven inches tall. These should
be set vertically, in the sailor position, and
wide joints should be left between them to
optimize air exchange.
• If desired, a two-foot-wide strip of the
same pavers described above could be
installed on the outside border of the
sidewalks to reflect the original design
intention. Implementation of this paving
strip could help solve the drainage problem
along the walks, as discussed above. The
strip could be raised to form a curb which
would direct the stormwater runoff to
a drain, or a drainage system could be
incorporated along the walks in and
underneath the pavers.
Benches
Recommended Approach: Retain and maintain
the concrete benches, which are contributing
features.
Recommended Preservation Actions:
• Retain and maintain the benches.
• If additional benches are necessary, they
should be compatible with the originals in
design, form, color, texture, and material.
• Retain or relocate benches to the locations
along the walks identified in the Saarinen/
Kiley plan (at rest areas, triangles, and other
locations).
• Consider removing the large number of
benches currently clustered around the base
of the Gateway Arch.
Recommendations for Future Design:
• If the benches deteriorate beyond repair
or if funding becomes available to replace
all, refer to the original Saarinen design
specifications and consider replacing the
concrete bench tops (the seat) with local
limestone, stone, or slate. lS
• Consider replacing the non-compatible
plastic park benches at Luther Ely Smith
Square and the chamfered-edged bench
at the Old Cathedral parking lot with the
Saarinen-designed concrete bench model.
Lighting
Recommended Approach: The lights are
non-contributing features but are functionally
necessary for the safety of employees and
visitors. They are generally compatible with the
existing landscape.
Recommended Preservation Actions:
• Maintain the existing lights and fixtures as
necessary.
• Replace the lights in-place and avoid
adding new lighting in other locations if
possible.
• If additional lighting is determined to be
necessary, review the Saarinen/Kiley plans
to determine placement that is in keeping
with the design intent.
• Avoid addition of vertical features such as
light standards within any important views
or vistas.
• Avoid placements for lighting that would
require the removal of allee trees along the
walks.
JEFFERSON NATIONAL EXPANSION MEMORIAL CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT
TREATMENT RECOMMENDATIONS / 5-27
Recommendations for Future Design:
• If replacement of all the existing light
standards becomes necessary in the future,
they should be replaced with a Modern
design style that is sympathetic to the
Memorial's design aesthetic. 1 '
• When selecting new light standards in the
future, consider an unobtrusive style and
scale.
• Utilize new lighting that is
environmentally sustainable. Consider
selecting luminaires that meet dark-sky
lighting standards to limit light pollution,
unlike the current globes that lack cutoffs.
Trash Receptacles
Recommended Approach: The trash receptacles
are non-contributing, but are functionally
necessary features. Consider new trash
receptacle standards that are compatible with
the character of the Memorial landscape.
Recommended Preservation Action:
• Retain, maintain, and limit the number of
trash receptacles on the Memorial grounds
to the minimum needed.
Recommendations for Future Design:
• In the future, consider replacing the
existing trash receptacles with uniform,
modern substitutes. The receptacles should
be carefully placed so as not to be visually
intrusive.
• Consider adding recycling bins.
Drinking Fountains
Recommended Approach: The drinking foun-
tains are non-contributing, but are necessary
features for the comfort of the visitors. When
they need replacement, use new drinking
fountain standards that are compatible with
the character of the Memorial landscape.
Recommended Action:
• Retain and maintain the existing drinking
fountains.
Recommendations for Future Design:
• In the future, consider replacing the
drinking fountains with improved,
unobtrusive modern substitutes.
Kiosk
Recommended Approach: The information
kiosk is non-contributing but it is an important
directional tool to guide visitors to the site. If
replacing the kiosk in the future, use a design
that is compatible with the character of the
Memorial landscape.
Recommended Preservation Actions:
• Retain and maintain the kiosk until new
orientation features are designed to replace
it.
Recommendations for Future Design:
• Consider replacing the kiosk with an
improved, unobtrusive, modern feature
fulfilling the same function.
• Consider options for a compatible
orientation feature replacing the kiosk.
This could be of similar materials to
existing features in the landscape (aggregate
concrete); or of an unobtrusive material
(with transparent qualities such as glass);
similar in scale to the existing kiosk, and
could be moved to a different location or
integrated into the adjacent garage instead
of free-standing.
Entrance Signs
Recommended Approach: The National Park
Service entrance signs are non-contributing,
and their design is not in keeping with the
Saarinen/Kiley "form-world." However, their
function is important in identifying the park.
When replacing signs in the future, use a
design that is compatible with the character of
the Memorial landscape.
Recommended Preservation Action:
• If replacement of the entrance signs
becomes necessary in the future, replace
with uniform, modern substitutes that are
not visually intrusive.
5-28 / TREATMENT RECOMMENDATIONS
JEFFERSON NATIONAL EXPANSION MEMORIAL CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT
Recommendations for Future Design:
• In keeping with the GMP, improve and
enhance the signage system to better convey
and reflect the identity of the Gateway Arch
and Memorial grounds.
• Prepare a comprehensive signage plan
which identifies appropriate size, font,
color, style, and locations for all types of
signage needed on site.
• Any new signs should be designed as
part of a unified site-wide system of
environmental graphics and signage.
• Consider a twentieth-century Modern
design for all signage that, while clearly
stating the site is NPS property, better fits
the Memorial's character than the "park
rustic" standard NPS signage found at many
national parks.
• Consider installing wayside exhibits
identifying the importance of the landscape
and some of the significant character-
defining features of the Saarinen/Kiley
design.
Fencing
Recommended Approach: Maintain and replace
as needed the chain-link safety fencing on
the Memorial grounds, being as minimal and
unobtrusive as possible in siting and design.
The chain-link fences are non-contributing
features but are necessary for safety and
security.
Recommended Preservation Actions:
• Maintain unobtrusive fencing as necessary
for safety along the rail cuts.
• Avoid adding additional fencing where
safety concerns can be addressed using less
visually intrusive means.
• Maintain and repair the fences as needed.
• Perform bi-annual condition assessments
of the chain-link fences and replace with
uniform, heavy-gauge wire mesh, posts and
rails in-kind as necessary.
• Utilize replacement fencing that is as
unobtrusive as possible; the current dark
green plastic-coated galvanized chain link
fencing fulfills this goal relatively well.
Recommendations for Future Design:
• Consider as part of a new design replacing
the chain-link fence with another type of
barrier that is more reflective of the Modern
aesthetic.
Irrigation System
Recommended Approach: The underground
sprinkler system is not a contributing feature,
but it is important for keeping the lawn and
plantings healthy.
Recommended Preservation Actions:
• Conduct an irrigation audit to investigate
current water usage and record deficiencies.
Based on the results of the audit, modernize
the system to optimize water usage and
efficiency.
• Consider strategies for plant replacement
that include plant species that do not
require irrigation. Review and comply with
National Park Service policies on the use of
water for irrigation as well as sustainability
standards involving water usage.
Recommendations for Future Design:
• Re-design the system separating zones
according to usage (e.g. lawn, shrubs, trees
in walks). Establish a cyclic replacement
schedule for the replacement of valves,
heads, water lines, and automation clocks to
maintain optimum quality and efficiency of
the system.
Memorial Plaques
The memorial plaques (Saarinen, Luther Ely
Smith, Joseph Pulitzer, Lewis and Clark, and
1993 Flood) are non-contributing landscape
features, but are compatible with the landscape
and may have other historic and interpretive
value.
Recommended Approach: Retain and maintain
the memorial plaques.
JEFFERSON NATIONAL EXPANSION MEMORIAL CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT
TREATMENT RECOMMENDATIONS / 5-29
Recommended Preservation Actions:
• Maintain the memorial plaques in-place.
Maintain the plaques to prevent damage
to surfaces of any contributing features
on which they are mounted, and regularly
clean the surfaces of patina staining where
it is evident (such as the Lewis and Clark
plaques on the overlooks).
• If relocation or removal of a plaque is
required in the course of other projects,
consider reinstalling it elsewhere within the
Memorial.
Unrealized Features of the Memorial
Landscape
Fountains
Recommended Approach: While never devel-
oped or implemented, the Saarinen/Kiley
concept of fountains on the north and south
axis (in the north and south triangles) could be
considered as a compatible future addition to
the Memorial grounds.
Recommendations for Future Design:
• As part of future design, consider adding
fountains and pedestrian plazas at the north
and south triangles to reflect the original
design concept.
• Consider basing designs on Kiley's later
verbal description: a low, bubbling type
fountain at each of the two triangles, which
would be paved with cobblestones or a
compatible material. Benches, compatible
in design and materials with the existing
benches, could be grouped at these plazas. 20
Pedestrian Overpasses
Recommended Approach: While never devel-
oped and implemented, Saarinen/Kiley's
concept of pedestrian overpasses bridging
Memorial Drive and connecting the Gateway
Arch to Luther Ely Smith Square could be
considered as a compatible future addition to
the Memorial grounds. The concept for the
overpasses was conceived by Eero Saarinen
and studied by his associates and by the local
firmofHB&A. 21
Recommendations for Future Design:
• Consider constructing the unrealized
pedestrian overpasses (one on the north
side and one on the south side) as originally
proposed by Saarinen.
• Pedestrian overpasses or a "lid" above
the recessed interstate, as proposed in the
GMP, may alter the existing appearance
of Luther Ely Smith Square. If adding a
civic plaza on a lid, design it to extend or be
compatible with the existing vocabulary of
walks, site furnishings, and plantings within
the Memorial grounds. If designing elevated
bridges, consider using the Saarinen/
Kiley alternative concepts for pedestrian
overpasses in one of the alternative plans as
inspiration.
Extension of Memorial into East St. Louis
Recommended Approach: Because this area
lies outside the NHL, and there are no
contributing cultural landscape features on
the east side of the river, the East St. Louis
extension area presents many opportunities
for new design. Broad views to the Memorial
grounds from the east side of the river are
important to the Saarinen/Kiley concept and
should be retained and maintained in any new
design in this area.
Recommendations for Future Design:
• While planning for the East St. Louis
extension, retain, maintain, and enhance
unobstructed views from the east riverfront
toward the Memorial grounds, including
the Gateway Arch, Courthouse, and the
span of the Memorial landscape between
the overlooks.
• Research Saarinen's early concepts for
the east side extension during the planning
process, and consider using them to the
extent possible."
• If substantial new facility development is
desired in connection with the Memorial,
consider placing it in East St. Louis as part
of an extension of the Memorial within its
authorized boundary.
5-30 / TREATMENT RECOMMENDATIONS
JEFFERSON NATIONAL EXPANSION MEMORIAL CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT
• Explore ways to enhance views to and
from East St. Louis; for example, by
relocating or removing vertical elements
along the riverfront, and by providing
vantage points for visitors.
• When designing future interventions
meeting the GMP Preferred Alternative
goal of increased opportunities for natural
resource protection and enhancement in
East St. Louis addition, avoid obscuring the
views of the Gateway Arch along its axis.
JEFFERSON NATIONAL EXPANSION MEMORIAL CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT
TREATMENT RECOMMENDATIONS / 5-31
Endnotes
"GMP" as used throughout this document
refers to the GMP/EIS Preferred
Alternative for the Memorial, as identified
in the 2009 Record of Decision.
Robert R. Page, Cathy Gilbert, and Susan
Dolan,^4 Guide to Cultural Landscape
Reports: Contents, Process, and Techniques
(Washington, D.C: National Park Service,
1998).
U.S. Department of the Interior, Guidelines
for the Treatment of Historic Landscapes
(DRAFT, undated), prepared by the
Preservation Assistance Division, National
Park Service, 45.
Department of the Interior, National
Park Service, Director's Order 28:
Cultural Resource Management Guideline
(Washington, DC: NPS Office of Policy,
1998)5100.
Director's Order 28
27.
6. Director's Order 28, 67.
7. The Secretary of the Interior's Standards
for the Treatment of Historic Properties &
Guidelines for the Treatment of Cultural
Landscapes, NPS Historic Landscape
Initiative, http://www.nps.gov/history/
hps/hli/landscape_guidelines/rehab/
approach.htm.
8. The Secretary of the Interior's Standards
for the Treatment of Historic Properties &
Guidelines for the Treatment of Cultural
Landscapes.
9. Dan Kiley interview with Gina Bellavia,
Mary Hughes, and Gregg Bleam, June
13, 1996 (transcript on file at JNEM).
Kiley suggested the tulip poplar,
London planetree (Platanus hybrida),
gingko (Gingko biloba), honeylocust
(Gleditsia triacanthos), or Eastern
cottonwood (Populus deltoides) as possible
replacements for the Rosehill ash. The
single-species planting tree species should
be fast-growing, tall, and deciduous. These
characteristics should be balanced with
13-
14.
maintenance concerns such as availability,
resistance to insect and disease, and soil
adaptability.
A rhythmic replacement program was
suggested by Dan Kiley in an interview
with Gina Bellavia, Mary Hughes, and
Gregg Bleam, June 13, 1996. Transcript of
the interview on file in JNEM Archives.
Refer to the original landscape design
approved by the NPS in 1966. Copy on
file in JNEM Archives, Record Unit 120,
Drawer 12, Folder 10, Drawing number
3071C.
Dan Kiley interview with Gina Bellavia,
Mary Hughes, and Gregg Bleam, June 13,
1996. Transcript on file in JNEM Archives.
Kiley suggested the red oak (Quercus
rubra) as the dominant canopy tree
because it is found in the native Missouri
forest. This decision should also be
balanced with aspects such as availability,
culture, sun and soil preference, and
resistance to insects and disease.
Ibid. Kiley suggested using the loblolly
pine (Pinus taeda) or pitch pine (Pinus
rigida) to replace the black pine which
generally does not perform well on the
site. Aspects such as local availability,
culture, sun and soil preference, and
resistance to insects and disease should be
considered.
The plantings chosen for this purpose
should reflect those used for the same
purpose throughout the site.
15. Ibid.
16. Dan Kiley interview with Gina Bellavia,
Mary Hughes, and Gregg Bleam, June 13,
1996 (transcript on file in JNEM Archives).
Kiley suggested removing the tree grates
and planting groundcover in their place.
This is not considered a feasible solution
because of the maintenance involved in
keeping the groundcover from spreading
into the lawn area. Also, the groundcover
would not only need to tolerate the
5-32 / TREATMENT RECOMMENDATIONS
JEFFERSON NATIONAL EXPANSION MEMORIAL CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT
difficult growing conditions but would
also have to withstand heavy foot traffic.
17. JNEM Archives, Record Unit 120,
Drawing No. 3027. The installation of
pavers would have to be coordinated
with the tree replacement program since
existing trees and roots will not allow
their proper installation now. A landscape
architect should design construction
details for tree planting and paver
installation.
18. Dan Kiley interview with Gina Bellavia,
Mary Hughes, and Gregg Bleam. Kiley
suggested the change to the benches
which conforms with Saarinen and Kiley's
original design for benches on the levee.
See Drawing No. SD14 Details, JNEM
Archives, Record Unit 120, Drawer 23,
Folder 7.
19. Consider Bega, Catalog Number Six, page
167 for an appropriate style light fixture.
This catalog and style was recommended
by Dan Kiley in an interview with Gina
Bellavia, June 13, 1996. A copy of the Bega
catalog is on file in the JNEM Archives.
20. Transcript on file in JNEM Archives. Kiley
suggested a low-bubbling fountain in the
center of a paved pedestrian plaza.
21. The studies produced by Saarinen and
Associates and the design produced by
HB&A are on file in the JNEM Archives.
22. The east side expansion plans (past
and present) were not researched in
detail for this report. Material regarding
the expansion can be found in various
collections located in the JNEM Archives.
JEFFERSON NATIONAL EXPANSION MEMORIAL CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT
TREATMENT RECOMMENDATIONS / 5-33
THIS PAGE LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK
JEFFERSON NATIONAL EXPANSION MEMORIAL CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT
Implementation Projects
IDENTIFICATION AND DESCRIPTION
OF TREATMENT PROJECTS
This chapter describes the means for
implementing the "Recommended
Preservation Actions" described in
Chapter 5: Treatment Recommendations.
The recommendations for preserving
and rehabilitating the Jefferson National
Expansion Memorial landscape have
been developed into a series of potential
implementation projects described below.
The projects are intended to take the
recommendations a step further, providing
discrete rehabilitation and repair projects
and processes that can be physically realized
at the Memorial. They focus on preserving
and enhancing the landscape's significant
character- defining features within the National
Historic Landmark (NHL) boundary. Projects
generally involve rehabilitating the designed
landscape based on documentation, analysis,
and recommendations provided in Chapters
1-5 of this report.
The project descriptions are organized to
be compatible with the format of the NPS's
project tracking and management systems:
the Facilities Management Software System
(FMSS) and Project Management Information
System (PMIS). The implementation projects
respond to current landscape deficiencies
identified by Memorial personnel in the
development of this report; the documentation
and findings of this report; life safety, visitor
accessibility, and interpretation considerations;
and goals outlined in the Memorial's General
Management Plan (GMP) completed in 2009.
All potential projects are subject to review
under federal Section 106 regulations.
Each overarching implementation project is
presented below under a heading identifying
the "deficiency" (as it is termed in FMSS) that
the listed project or projects are intended to
address. A brief description of each project
is followed by a summary of justifications for
undertaking it. Each project area is identified
on a location map.
Next, the implementation process is organized
in a table for each project. In each project's
table, five subheadings reference steps in
the NPS Denver Service Center workflow
process (predesign, schematic design, design
development, construction documents,
construction) with the addition of a sixth
subheading, "documentation," which is a
necessary final step for projects undertaking
alterations to the landscape within the NHL.
Tasks are listed in the first column, including
studies and other anticipated components of
the project. The second column, Expertise
Needed, identifies what professional expertise
or skilled technical labor is required to
carry out each task. The third column, Cost
Implications, summarizes the special factors
or considerations that can be identified ahead
of time as potentially influencing the cost of
the tasks. These are based on typical mark-ups
used in cost estimating (as identified in the
NPS DSC Cost-Estimating Requirements
Handbook, November 2007) as well as other
predictable conditions that could cause
fluctuations in costs.
The breakdown of tasks for each project
does not include all project management,
compliance and related reviews, and other
management elements typically undertaken
by NPS personnel as part of the planning,
design, and construction phases of a project. It
6.0
JEFFERSON NATIONAL EXPANSION MEMORIAL CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT
IMPLEMENTATION PROJECTS / 6-1
is important to note that many of the potential
implementation projects at the Memorial are
complex, and may require additional studies to
determine the full extent of each construction
project and its costs.
Relationship to Landscape
Preservation Maintenance Plan
A related document to this Cultural Landscape
Report is the Landscape Preservation
Maintenance Plan for Jefferson National
Expansion Memorial (scheduled for
completion in 2010). The maintenance plan
is based on this Cultural Landscape Report's
findings and likewise focuses on the landscape
within the NHL. The goal is to provide
specific maintenance information to support
retaining and renewing the Memorial's
Modern aesthetic. The plan is expected to
include specific guidance to support long-term
day-to-day maintenance (such as correct
pruning practices) to maintain the appropriate
appearance of the landscape through cyclic
practices. It will identify thresholds for
maintenance, with an emphasis on vegetation.
Structural elements and circulation will be
addressed at a concept level, focusing on
exterior aesthetic characteristics such as
surface materials and retention of forms and
details that are character-defining. The plan
will also recommend general replacement
and repair strategies and thresholds. It will
not address potential new designs or planned
alterations to the landscape, but may be
updated periodically in the future to respond
to such alterations when they occur.
DEFICIENCIES AND PROJECT
DESCRIPTIONS
Deficiency: Poor Surface Water
Drainage and Erosion
Drainage is poor in many parts of the
Memorial, in particular along the southwest
portion of the system of walks. There are
drainage problems which appear to be causing
paving failure in some areas of large paving
expanses, such as the northwest plaza and
north overlook. Poor drainage contributes
to erosion in steep slope areas such as those
southeast of the south pond, northeast of the
north pond, southwest of the north service
area, and along the railroad open cuts. In some
places, overwatering by the irrigation system
may be exacerbating erosion and drainage
problems. Although drainage issues have been
identified and treated in numerous locations
within the park over time, they have not been
analyzed and clearly identified at the overall
landscape scale.
Project 1. Stormwater Management
Plan
Project Description
This project would include a watershed-level
investigation and analysis of the stormwater
and drainage patterns for the Memorial
landscape. It would identify general and
specific problems related to surface drainage
and erosion and their causes, as well as noting
areas with chronic drainage problems. The
plan would propose a series of unobtrusive
drainage improvements that could be
implemented consistently throughout the
landscape.
The plan would integrate existing information
from previous studies, as well as conditions
identified during maintenance and repair
projects in recent years. This information
would then be used to develop a Memorial-
wide plan for stormwater management that
is in keeping with goals for preservation of
character-defining features of the landscape.
The plan would serve as a basis for future
repair, rehabilitation, and construction
projects.
Justification
By approaching stormwater management
in a holistic manner rather than focusing
only on trouble spots and discrete project
sites, this project can address larger-scale
stormwater problems causing maintenance
issues throughout the Memorial landscape.
The big-picture analysis and provision of
Memorial-wide solutions would support
retention and maintenance of the character-
defining features of the landscape in the
NHL when managing drainage and erosion.
The plan provides efficiency by eliminating
redundant predesign studies for future
construction and repair projects.
6-2 / IMPLEMENTATION PROJECTS
JEFFERSON NATIONAL EXPANSION MEMORIAL CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT
Project 1 Implementation Process
TASK
EXPERTISE NEEDED
COST IMPLICATIONS
1.0 Predesign
Memorial-wide stormwater
Landscape architect or
Up-front planning and engineering costs
management plan
engineer specializing in
to coordinate Memorial-wide plan;
stormwater, supported
potential future efficiencies for prede-
by (as needed): civil
sign and design phases of individual
engineer, historical land-
projects; better design solutions could
scape architect, cultural
reduce long-term design, construction,
resource specialist,
and maintenance costs
Memorial staff, NPS
Region and/or DSC staff
2.0 Schematic Design
Wot applicable
-
-
3.0 Design Development
Wot applicable
-
-
4.0 Construction Documents
Wot applicable
-
-
5.0 Construction
Wot applicable
-
-
6.0 Documentation
Wot applicable
-
-
Deficiency: Diminished Integrity
of Significant Views And Vistas
Some significant designed views and vistas
at the Memorial have been interrupted
by non-historic vertical features. The
maintenance facility and service areas are
insufficiently screened from view. These
integrity-diminishing conditions are complex
due to varying responsibilities, such as utility
and traffic features along Memorial Drive in
the middle of the Memorial's main vista. These
conditions are potentially reversible with
mitigation measures (such as undergrounding
overhead utilities, or adding appropriate
screening) that could improve the integrity of
the Memorial landscape.
Project 2. Visual Quality
Assessment and Concept Plan
Project Description
This project would focus on determining
ways to enhance — and mitigate existing
intrusions of — the character-defining views
within the Memorial landscape, including
the major north-south and east -west vistas
and the views to the Gateway Arch from
the pond areas, overlooks, along the walks.
The study would also consider views into
the grounds from along the street perimeter
and from the observation deck at the top
of the Gateway Arch. The visual quality
assessment would determine where views
and vistas are obstructed or infringed upon
by non-contributing features (such as street
lights, utility poles, highway signs, bright or
light-colored features in service areas of park,
and security cameras); the concept plan would
provide options and strategies to mitigate these
problems, including identifying the parties
and agencies with jurisdiction over identified
intrusive features (such as overhead traffic
signals, signs, and utilities on aerial poles),
partnership opportunities and necessary
coordination, and potential for phasing of
enhancements as part of other projects.
Taking security and sustainability
considerations into account, the plan would
also identify areas for potential adjustment
JEFFERSON NATIONAL EXPANSION MEMORIAL CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT
IMPLEMENTATION PROJECTS / 6-3
of locations of security cameras and lighting
within the grounds; and targeted pruning of
tree branches where they are blocking views,
such as along the north-south axis of the
Memorial.
Justification
Views are essential to visitor experience and
to conveying the design intent of Saarinen/
Kiley for the Memorial. The presence
Project 2 Implementation Process
of non-contributing vertical elements
interrupting these views diminishes the
integrity of the Memorial landscape. This
project would support the reversal of these
conditions, which would enhance both visitor
experience and the integrity of the Memorial
landscape. Developing a coordinated plan
supports efficiencies and opportunities
to include view enhancements as part of
other projects or in coordination with other
responsible agencies.
TASK
EXPERTISE NEEDED
COST IMPLICATIONS
1.0 Predesign
Memorial-wide visual quality
Historical landscape
Up-front planning costs to coordinate
assessment and concept plan
architect, Memorial
Memorial-wide plan; potential future
staff, NPS Region and/
efficiencies for predesign and design phases
or DSC staff
of individual projects; better design solutions
could reduce long-term design, construction,
and maintenance costs of rehabilitating
views, and support cooperative process with
partners such as utility company, MODOT, etc.
2.0 Schematic Design
Wot applicable
-
-
3.0 Design Development
Wot applicable
-
-
4.0 Construction Documents
Wot applicable
-
-
5.0 Construction
Wot applicable
-
-
6.0 Documentation
Wot applicable
-
-
6-4 / IMPLEMENTATION PROJECTS
JEFFERSON NATIONAL EXPANSION MEMORIAL CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT
Project 3. Enhance Screening of Service
Areas And Maintenance Facility
Project Description
In coordination with the visual quality assessment
described above in Project 2, this project would
involve enhancement of screening plantings
around the north and south service areas and the
maintenance facility (see Figure 6.1 for general
areas). A planting plan would be developed and
implemented, based on an understanding of the
original Saarinen/Kiley intention for plantings,
with the goal of enhancing screening of the
maintenance facility and north and south service
areas.
Justification
These service and functional areas were
intended to be screened from view of
visitors to the Memorial by a combination
of topography and vegetation. While the
topographic changes remain effective, the
vegetation is missing or otherwise ineffective
in screening views in some areas, especially
around the maintenance facility. Views of
these service areas diminish the integrity
of the cultural landscape. This condition is
reversible through addition of appropriate
vegetation to increase the visual buffer.
-:~1
*j* J *.. A .*'
t *
Figure 6.1 Project 3: Enhance Screening of Service Areas And Maintenance Facility.
JEFFERSON NATIONAL EXPANSION MEMORIAL CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT
IMPLEMENTATION PROJECTS / 6-5
Project 3 Implementation Process
TASK EXPERTISE NEEDED COST IMPLICATIONS
1.0 Predesign
Memorial-wide visual Historical landscape archi-
quality assessment and tect, Memorial staff, NPS
concept plan Region and/or DSC staff
Up-front planning costs to coordinate
Memorial-wide plan (see Project 2 above);
cost of compliance review (verify compli-
ance requirements); potential efficiency
due to having a coordinated sub-area plan
in place to streamline implementation
(having estimated phasing, budget, scope,
compliance completed); phasing allows a
coordinated process for budgeting
2.0 Schematic Design
Develop alternatives for
planting (by phase)
Historical landscape archi- If pre-design tasks are not completed,
tect, Memorial staff, NPS some of the steps would have to occur
Region and/or DSC staff in schematic design phase, potentially
increasing costs
3.0 Design Development
Develop selected alternative
into detailed planting plan
Historical landscape archi-
tect, Memorial staff, NPS
Region and/or DSC staff
Not applicable
4.0 Construction Documents
Develop construction
contract documents for
planting
Historical landscape archi- Not applicable
tect, Memorial staff, NPS
Region and/or DSC staff
5.0 Construction
Install plants
Landscape contractor;
Memorial staff, NPS Region
and/or DSC staff
Historic preservation factor will apply;
complexity of construction logistics; main-
tenance of ongoing operations (visitor
experience); variable costs including:
number and size of plants to be added
or replaced and number of plants to be
retained, extent of protection needed for
plants to remain, possible alterations to
irrigation system configuration, extent of
lawn areas requiring repair, availability,
size, and age of new plants, date (season)
of planting
6.0 Documentation
Post-construction docu-
mentation of changes to
landscape
Historical landscape archi-
tect , Memorial staff, NPS
Region and/or DSC staff
Would likely involve professional fees
above and beyond a typical scope of
services for design; could be integrated
into maintenance planning process or
undertaken as part of a CLR Part III treat-
ment documentation
6-6 / IMPLEMENTATION PROJECTS
JEFFERSON NATIONAL EXPANSION MEMORIAL CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT
Figure 6.2 Project 4: Rehabilitate Pond Area Plantings to More Closely Represent Design Intention.
Deficiency: Plantings Around Ponds do
Not Reflect Design Intention
The existing plantings do not reflect Saarinen/
Kiley's design intention for the planting of the
pond areas. The plantings around the ponds
were installed more than a decade after the
final planting plan designed by Dan Kiley
and approved by the National Park Service.
These plantings generally reflect the as-built
1980 NPS installation, which varied somewhat
from the approved Kiley plan due to funding
constraints, substitutions, and lower
numbers of plants than originally specified.
Incrementally, design development leading up
to the 1980 installation altered the plantings
from Kiley's stated intention of a limited
number of species composing an abstracted
forest and meadows. After the plantings were
initially installed, replacements and alterations
made over time were made in reference to
the 1980 plan. These ultimately changed the
appearance of the pond areas even further
due to past management decisions, such as
experimenting with adding individual or
small groups of new tree species or varieties
to identify better-performing species for
replacement tree plantings. Unintentionally,
this and other practices resulted in a park-like
landscape appearance that did not convey
the character of Kiley's design intention,
and resulted in an increased number of tree
species, low turf lawn and mulch rings, and
additions of small groupings of trees in lawn.
As a result, these areas of the landscape have
diminished integrity.
Project 4. Rehabilitate Pond Area
Plantings to More Closely Represent
Design Intention
Project Description
This project would rehabilitate the plantings
surrounding the ponds to more closely realize
Kiley's "forest/meadow" concept for these
areas evident in his 1966 NPS-approved
planting plan. This project involves the
area of the Memorial surrounding the
ponds, bounded by the single-species allee
plantings lining the walks (see Figure 6.2 for
approximate area).
The project would consider the feasibility of
using lower-maintenance, taller, and/or native
grasses, as well as the potential reconfiguration
of trees to more closely reflect the spatial
arrangement and plant composition in the
1966 approved Kiley plan. A pre-design
study would consider the feasibility of using
Kiley-specified plants, and would determine
appropriate substitutions where necessary.
Because some of the original plants in the
Kiley plan did not survive well, potential
substitutions would be identified that convey
similar form and character to the intended
planting but are more hardy and suitable to
site conditions. The project would refer to
the original design drawings from the JNEM
Archive, as well as this CLR and other existing
studies, and would take into consideration
stormwater management, security concerns,
and sustainability goals.
JEFFERSON NATIONAL EXPANSION MEMORIAL CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT
IMPLEMENTATION PROJECTS / 6-7
Justification
The rehabilitation of this important planting
would mitigate incremental changes that
have occurred over time, and bring existing
landscape character closer to the intended
Project 4 Implementation Process
design. It has the potential to increase the
integrity of the landscape within these highly
visible areas of the Memorial. Furthermore,
resulting changes to mowing and irrigation
regimes may assist the Memorial in meeting
landscape sustainability goals for water, fuel,
and energy use.
TASK EXPERTISE NEEDED COST IMPLICATIONS
1.0 Predesign
Pond area concept plan
Historical landscape archi- Up-front planning costs; cost of
tect, Memorial staff, NPS compliance review (verify compli-
Region and/or DSC staff ance requirements); later potential
efficiency due to having a coordinated
sub-area plan in place to streamline
implementation (by having estimated
phasing, budget, scope, compliance
completed); phasing allows a coordi-
nated process for budgeting
2.0 Schematic Design
Develop alternatives for planting
(by phase)
Historical landscape archi- If pre-design tasks are not completed,
tect, Memorial staff, NPS some of the steps would have to occur
Region and/or DSC staff in schematic design phase, potentially
increasing costs
3.0 Design Development
Develop selected alternative into
detailed planting plan
Historical landscape archi- Not applicable
tect, Memorial staff, NPS
Region and/or DSC staff
4.0 Construction Documents
Develop construction contract
documents for planting
Historical landscape archi- Not applicable
tect, Memorial staff, NPS
Region and/or DSC staff
5.0 Construction
Install plants
Landscape contractor; Historic preservation factor will apply;
Memorial staff, NPS Region complexity of construction logistics;
and/or DSC staff maintenance of ongoing operations
(visitor experience); variable costs
including: extent of protection needed
for plants to remain, possible altera-
tions to irrigation system configura-
tion, extent of lawn areas requiring
repair, availability, size, and age of
new plants, date (season) of planting
6.0 Documentation
Post-construction documentation
of changes to landscape
Historical landscape archi- Would likely involve professional
tect, Memorial staff, NPS fees above and beyond a typical
Region and/or DSC staff scope of services for design; could be
integrated into maintenance planning
process or undertaken as part of a CLR
Part III treatment documentation
6-8 / IMPLEMENTATION PROJECTS
JEFFERSON NATIONAL EXPANSION MEMORIAL CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT
Deficiency: Rosehill Ash Trees
Threatened by Borer
The Rosehill ash trees in the single-species
allees along the walks throughout the
Memorial are expected to require replacement
with a different tree species due to threat
of emerald ash borer infestation. The NPS
Emerald Ash Borer Working Group has
been studying the issue and produced a draft
report in 2009 documenting potential short-
term replacement strategies; concurrently,
the development of alternatives for tree
replacement implementation and an
Environmental Assessment were under way at
the time of the writing of this CLR.
The replanting of the trees in -place is
connected to a series of other issues, since
the trees are planted in and along the edges
of the concrete aggregate walks (addressed in
Project 6). The tree pits will likely require soil
amendment and rehabilitation, if not complete
reconstruction, to ensure future tree health;
stormwater management and drainage are
also major considerations. The tree pits are
covered with non-contributing tree grates
that, in addition to maintenance and aesthetic
concerns, present a tripping hazard and in
some cases adversely impact the health of
the trees. These deficiencies are inextricably
connected due to the close physical proximity
of the trees, tree pits, walks, and grates;
remedying these issues will need to be closely
coordinated as parts of an overall landscape
rehabilitation process.
Project 5. Rehabilitate
Single-Species Allee Plantings
Project Description
This project affects all the Rosehill ash trees
in the single-species plantings lining the walks
throughout the main part of the Memorial
grounds (see Figure 6.3 for general area). All
the trees would be replaced in their existing
locations, but possibly with a substitute
tree species (to be selected). A phasing
plan for replacement of the trees would be
developed based on identification of how to
implement the project with the least impact
to the Memorial landscape and the visitor
experience.
A soil testing report is essential to support
design development. This report would be
undertaken to provide recommendations
for soil rehabilitation and protection from
compaction in the allee root zones, focusing
particularly on the tree pits. This could involve
a more comprehensive study to determine
the need for and feasibility of a sub-surface
structural soil system to support tree health
(which would also necessarily overlap with
rehabilitation of the system of walks, described
in Project 6).
The Emerald Ash Borer Strategy (currently
in progress) and Environmental Assessment
(currently in progress) would serve as bases for
development of this project, which would also
reference this CLR and other existing studies.
The project would also take into consideration
stormwater management, security concerns,
and sustainability goals.
Justification
The single-species allee plantings are an
essential character-defining feature of the
Memorial landscape and the NHL. These
plantings are threatened by the emerald
ash borer (as described in Chapter 3 of this
report) and much study has already gone into
determining how to best maintain the planting
without damaging its significant character.
This project undertakes the replacement of the
trees in a manner that would have a minimal
impact to the landscape.
JEFFERSON NATIONAL EXPANSION MEMORIAL CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT
IMPLEMENTATION PROJECTS / 6-9
Project 5 Implementation Process
TASK EXPERTISE NEEDED COST IMPLICATIONS
1.0 Predesign
Predesign studies in
progress: Emerald
Ash Borer Strategy,
tree selection work-
shop, Environmental
Assessment
NPSEAB Working
Group; Historical
landscape architect,
arborist or urban
forester, Memorial
staff, NPS Region and/
or DSC staff
Up-front planning costs; cost of compliance review
(verify compliance requirements); later potential
efficiency due to having a coordinated sub-area plan
in place to streamline implementation (by having
estimated phasing, budget, scope, compliance
completed); phasing allows a coordinated process
for budgeting
Predesign study:
Soil Testing Report
Soil scientist or
agronomist
Number of test locations; up-front cost of study;
possible implementation of tree pit and soil changes;
ensuring in advance of tree planting that soil and
tree pits can support tree health may reduce long-
term maintenance and replacement costs
2.0 Schematic Design
Develop alternatives for
planting (by phase)
Historical landscape
architect, Memorial
staff, NPS Region and/
or DSC staff
If pre-design tasks are not completed, some of
the steps would have to occur in schematic design
phase, potentially increasing costs
3.0 Design
Development
Develop selected
alternative into detailed
planting plan
Historical landscape
architect, Memorial
staff, NPS Region and/
or DSC staff
Not applicable
4.0 Construction
Documents
Develop construction
contract documents for
planting
Historical landscape
architect, Memorial
staff, NPS Region and/
or DSC staff
Not applicable
5.0 Construction
Install plants
Landscape contractor;
Memorial staff, NPS
Region and/or DSC
staff
Historic preservation factor will apply; complexity
of construction logistics; maintenance of ongoing
operations (visitor experience); variable costs
including: extent of protection needed for plants to
remain, rehabilitation of tree pits and soil, possible
alterations to irrigation system configuration, extent
of lawn areas requiring repair, availability, size, and
age of new plants, date (season) of planting
6.0 Documentation
Post-construction docu-
mentation of changes
to landscape
Historical landscape
architect, Memorial
staff, NPS Region and/
or DSC staff
Would likely involve professional fees above and
beyond a typical scope of services for design; could
be integrated into maintenance planning process
or undertaken as part of a CLR Part III treatment
documentation
6-10 / IMPLEMENTATION PROJECTS
JEFFERSON NATIONAL EXPANSION MEMORIAL CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT
Figure 6.3 Project 5: Rehabilitate Single-Species Allee Plantings.
Deficiency: Inadequate Drainage and
Related Issues at Walks
The concrete aggregate walks throughout the
Memorial present difficulties for maintenance.
Grass-covered, tree-shaded slopes along the
walks, and tree roots pushing up paving, have
led to chronic drainage and erosion issues,
requiring replacement, mud-jacking to re-level
areas, and other maintenance interventions.
While the specific aggregate and redwood
strips used are not necessarily essential to
the character of the walks, the continuous
appearance of the surface is critical, so any
repairs must match the existing materials as
closely as possible. However, matching the
original aggregate has become difficult over
time. The expansion joints are of redwood,
which is expensive and difficult to replace
as it degrades, and in some areas it has been
supplemented with caulk, which is more
easily available but not in keeping with the
character of the Memorial landscape. The
walks also include non-historic grates covering
tree pits that, in addition to maintenance and
aesthetic problems, present a tripping hazard
and adversely impact the health of the trees.
These deficiencies are inextricably connected
to tree replacement (Project 3) due to the close
physical proximity of the trees, tree pits, walks,
and grates; likely they will be best addressed
as parts of the same overall landscape
rehabilitation process.
Project 6. Rehabilitate System of Walks
Project Description
This project affects the entire system
of concrete-aggregate walks within the
Memorial, with the exception of the
plazas on the overlooks. These walks are
an essential character-defining feature of
the Memorial; their curving form, uniform
surface appearance, and the manner in which
the aggregate paving visually recedes into
the ground plane beneath the trees are all
important characteristics. This project would
replace the concrete sidewalks in-place and
in-kind. It would give consideration to whether
changes to the aggregate type that would
permit easier replacement and maintenance
in the future could be undertaken without
diminishing the integrity of the walks. It would
explore the possibility of phasing large sections
of the work to minimize impact to visitor
experience, and coordinating with the tree
replacement and rehabilitation of the planting
system (see Project 5). Another consideration
is the removal of tree grates, and determination
JEFFERSON NATIONAL EXPANSION MEMORIAL CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT
IMPLEMENTATION PROJECTS / 6-11
Figure 6.4 Proj ect 6: Rehabilitate System of Walks.
of replacement options; the use of levee
block, as originally detailed by Saarinen/Kiley,
would be investigated, as this option would
more closely represent the original design
intention, and could support sustainability and
stormwater management goals as well.
In coordination with the stormwater
management plan for the overall Memorial
grounds (see Project 1), this project may
include design and installation of an enhanced
stormwater management system along the
edges of the walks. This project would refer
to this CLR, as well as undertaking pre-design
review of relevant historic construction
documents, as-built, and record drawings
for the walks, and other relevant studies. The
project would also take into consideration
security and sustainability goals.
Justification
The system of walks is an essential character-
defining feature of the Memorial. The uniform
appearance of the paving reflects the Modern
design of the feature, so any major repair or
replacement must blend into the existing
materials; or, if new materials are desired,
they must be replaced throughout the entire
system. Changes to the curving walk edges or
the uniform character of the materials may
diminish the integrity of the landscape. In
addition, there are related issues concerning
tree pits, tree replacement, drainage, and tree
grates that must be considered. This project
would address these complex considerations,
retaining the character of the walk system and
ameliorating the condition problems while also
coordinating with other related projects.
Deficiency: North and South Overlooks
are in Poor Condition
It is evident that while many surface repairs
have been undertaken at the overlooks over
time, recurring problems continue, likely
caused by underlying issues that may be identi-
fied through a detailed internal and external
structural assessment of the overlooks. This
CLR looks only at the surface conditions,
and does not include a structural assessment;
surface conditions indicate the likely existence
of underlying issues that cannot be diagnosed
on the surface.
Surface conditions observed include the
following. The north and south overlooks have
visible condition problems, including spalling
concrete, cracking, and pieces of concrete
falling from the floodwalls. The top of the
north overlook plaza walls is efflorescing and
crumbling in places; expansion joints along the
base of the wall and mortar joints under the
cap are failing. The Sika Top coating applied
to the surface of the viewing platforms, steps,
and overlook staircases is in poor condition
(cracking, spalling, and falling off in pieces).
The nearly one-inch-thick Sika Top coating
6-12 / IMPLEMENTATION PROJECTS
JEFFERSON NATIONAL EXPANSION MEMORIAL CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT
Project 6 Implementation Process
TASK EXPERTISE NEEDED COST IMPLICATIONS
1.0 Predesign
Predesign studies:
coordinate with studies
described above for
projects 1, 2 and 5:
stormwater management
plan, visual quality assess-
ment, and rehabilitation
of single-species allee
planting
Not applicable Not applicable
2.0 Schematic Design
Develop alternatives for
rehabilitation (by phase)
Historical landscape architect, If pre-design tasks are not completed,
Memorial staff, NPS Region some of the steps would have to occur
and/or DSC staff in schematic design phase, potentially
increasing costs
3.0 Design Development
Develop selected alterna-
tive into detailed design
development drawing set
(by phase)
Historical landscape architect, Not applicable
Memorial staff, NPS Region
and/or DSC staff
4.0 Construction
Documents
Develop construction
contract documents for
rehabilitation of walks (by
phase)
Historical landscape architect, Not applicable
Memorial staff, NPS Region
and/or DSC staff
5.0 Construction
Construct/repair rehabili-
tated walks
Landscape contractor Historic preservation factor will apply;
complexity of construction logistics for
access to project site; maintenance of
ongoing operations (visitor experience);
variable costs including: extent of protec-
tion needed for adjacent plantings and
features, possible grading for drainage
repair, extent of lawn areas requiring
repair, others
6.0 Documentation
Post-construction docu-
mentation of changes to
landscape
Historical landscape architect, Would likely involve professional fees
Memorial staff, NPS Region above and beyond a typical scope of
and/or DSC staff services for design; could be integrated
into maintenance planning process or
undertaken as part of a CLR Part III treat-
ment documentation
JEFFERSON NATIONAL EXPANSION MEMORIAL CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT
IMPLEMENTATION PROJECTS / 6-13
used to repair the north and south staircases
to the overlooks is failing, and poor surface
drainage is also evident. At the south overlook,
the paving appears to be separating from its
foundation where the wall begins on the west
side of the plaza. On the floodwalls, vertical
cracking and water seepage are visible.
Project 7. Overlooks Historic Structure
Condition Assessment and Treatment
Plan
Project Description
This project affects the entire north and south
overlooks, including the floodwalls, plazas,
viewing platforms, stairs to viewing platforms,
and large staircases between the plazas at the
top of the overlooks and Leonor K. Sullivan
Boulevard. The overlooks are clearly in need
of attention, but any future action rests upon
determining the underlying causes of visible
damage and the structural condition of the
overlooks. Prior to undertaking any major
repair, reuse, or rehabilitation work at the
overlooks, a detailed structural assessment
of both north and south overlooks would be
undertaken. The study would be akin to a
Historic Structure Report, with appropriate
research and testing, documentation of
conditions on both interior and exterior of
the overlooks, and detailed recommendations
for treatment. Because the overlooks include
walls that are part of the city's floodwall
system, a hydraulic engineer would also be
included in the process to ensure any planned
treatment is coordinated with flood control
requirements. Once discovered and identified,
condition problems can be addressed through
a comprehensive rehabilitation project for the
structures followed by appropriate long-term
maintenance.
The elements to be addressed would include
the interior and exterior of the overlooks, the
plaza paving and substrate, viewing platforms,
and the floodwalls. Existing PMIS projects
could be coordinated with this overall project
to avoid duplication and promote efficient use
of resources. Existing projects in the PMIS
system address repairs of the north and south
staircases, rebuilding the stairs to viewing
platforms.
Other considerations could include a
feasibility study and potential rehabilitation of
the interior overlook spaces; study of potential
for adaptation to visitor uses to support goals
of the GMP; and design and replacement of
the non-contributing guardrails and handrails
on the viewing platforms with code-compliant,
compatible new railings.
The project would refer to the stormwater
management plan, this CLR, and other
existing studies, and would also take into
consideration security and sustainability goals.
Justification
The overlooks are major character-defining
features of the Memorial landscape. They
are in poor condition despite evidence of
numerous surface repairs and patches over
time. Maintaining these essential elements of
the Saarinen/Kiley landscape requires a better
understanding of the underlying issues that
may be responsible for ongoing condition
! » ' ■ -
! i
I «
Figure 6.5 Project 7: Overlooks Historic Structure Condition Assessment.
6-14 / IMPLEMENTATION PROJECTS
JEFFERSON NATIONAL EXPANSION MEMORIAL CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT
Project 7 Implementation Process
TASK EXPERTISE NEEDED COST IMPLICATIONS
1.0 Predesign
Predesign study: Historic
Structures Report and
recommendations,
other feasibility studies
Structural engineer with Structural assessment will require special-
historic concrete structures ists who are experienced in mid-20th-
experience; historical architect, century concrete structures and understand
materials conservator, historical the historic preservation issues involved,
landscape architect
2.0 Schematic Design
Develop alternatives for Historical landscape architect,
rehabilitation (by phase) Memorial staff, NPS Region
and/or DSC staff
If pre-design tasks are not completed, some
of the steps would have to occur in sche-
matic design phase, potentially increasing
costs; doing both overlooks at same time
could provide cost efficiencies
3.0 Design
Development
Develop selected
alternative into detailed
design development
drawing set
Historical landscape architect,
Memorial staff, NPS Region
and/or DSC staff
Not applicable
4.0 Construction
Documents
Develop construction
documents
Historical landscape architect, Not applicable
Memorial staff, NPS Region
and/or DSC staff
5.0 Construction
Construction work
Contractor with experience
rehabilitating historic concrete
structures
Could vary widely depending on the findings
of the HSR; floodwall requirements may
result in cost increase; historic preservation
factor will apply; there will be a heightened
level of complexity of construction logistics
for access to project site; will need to plan
for mitigation of potential disruptions to
visitor experience during construction.
6.0 Documentation
Post-construction docu-
mentation of changes to
landscape
Historical architect and Would likely involve professional fees above
historical landscape architect and beyond a typical scope of services for
design; could be integrated into mainte-
nance planning process or undertaken as
part of a CLR Part III treatment documenta-
tion
JEFFERSON NATIONAL EXPANSION MEMORIAL CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT
IMPLEMENTATION PROJECTS / 6-15
problems on the surfaces of the overlooks.
A holistic approach to the overlooks is the
most efficient, effective method of preserving
them over the long term, thereby enhancing
the visitor experience and the integrity of the
Memorial landscape.
Deficiency: Existing Plantings do not
Reflect Design Intention
The existing plantings do not reflect Saarinen/
Kiley's design intention for planting at the
Memorial in a few areas, specifically at the
parking garage, and also along the slopes along
the railroad open cuts and tunnels.
The plantings at the parking garage are
non-contributing and unrelated to the Kiley
plan. The plant selection is unlike other
areas of the Memorial grounds and there are
ongoing maintenance problems with the plants
around the garage. As a result, the plants are in
poor condition, there are erosion and drainage
problems, and this area has diminished
integrity.
The plantings on the slopes by the railroad
open cuts were not implemented entirely in
keeping with the Kiley 1966 approved planting
plan. Substitutions and alterations occurred for
various reasons, including funding limitations,
during the NPS design development, reflected
in the 1980 implementation. Subsequent
management decisions and maintenance
practices have incrementally changed the
plantings but they remain different from the
intended appearance. This area was intended
by Kiley to have a densely planted character,
but today much of it is in low turf lawn with
scattered trees, some of which are declining.
In addition, many of the sloped areas that
are currently lawn cover are suffering from
erosion.
Project 8. Redesign Parking Garage
Plantings to Align with Planting Design
of Larger Memorial Landscape
Project Description
This project would redesign and replace the
non-contributing plantings around the parking
garage to make them more compatible with the
character of contributing plantings in the rest
of the Memorial (see Figure 6.6). The project
would also include repair and stabilization of
eroding slopes around the garage area, and
would refer to the stormwater management
plan, this CLR, and other existing studies. The
project would also accommodate security and
sustainability goals.
Justification
This is the first area of the Memorial landscape
viewed by visitors as they exit the parking
garage on their way to the Gateway Arch. The
redesign of plantings in this area would bring it
closer in appearance to the other compatible
I H~4l
" *.(* «." *s *' JT-:
- -w- ' t .-.» % * ■ rl — -- — -
Figure 6.6 Project 8: Redesign Parking Garage Plantings to Align with Planting Design of Larger
Memorial Landscape.
6-16 / IMPLEMENTATION PROJECTS
JEFFERSON NATIONAL EXPANSION MEMORIAL CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT
Project 8 Implementation Process
TASK EXPERTISE NEEDED COST IMPLICATIONS
1.0 Predesign
Parking garage area
concept plan
Historical landscape archi-
tect, Memorial staff, NPS
Region and/or DSC staff
Up-front planning costs; cost of compliance
review (verify compliance requirements);
potential efficiency due to having a coordi-
nated sub-area plan in place to streamline
implementation (by having estimated
phasing, budget, scope, compliance
completed); phasing allows a coordinated
process for budgeting
2.0 Schematic Design
Develop alternatives for
planting (by phase)
Historical landscape archi-
tect, Memorial staff, NPS
Region and/or DSC staff
If pre-design tasks are not completed, some
of the steps would have to occur in schematic
design phase, potentially increasing costs
3.0 Design Development
Develop selected alterna-
tive into detailed planting
plan
Historical landscape archi-
tect, Memorial staff, NPS
Region and/or DSC staff
Not applicable
4.0 Construction
Documents
Develop construction
contract documents for
planting
Historical landscape archi-
tect, Memorial staff, NPS
Region and/or DSC staff
Not applicable
5.0 Construction
Install plants
Landscape contractor;
Memorial staff, NPS Region
and/or DSC staff
Historic preservation factor may apply;
complexity of construction logistics; main-
tenance of ongoing operations (visitor
experience); variable costs including: extent
of protection needed for plants to remain,
possible alterations to irrigation system
configuration, extent of lawn areas requiring
repair, availability, size, and age of new plants,
date (season) of planting
6.0 Documentation
Post-construction docu-
mentation of changes to
landscape
Historical landscape archi-
tect, Memorial staff, NPS
Region and/or DSC staff
Would likely involve professional fees above
and beyond a typical scope of services for
design; could be integrated into maintenance
planning process or undertaken as part of a
CLR Part III treatment documentation
JEFFERSON NATIONAL EXPANSION MEMORIAL CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT
IMPLEMENTATION PROJECTS / 6-17
and contributing plantings throughout the
Memorial, and has the potential to enhance
the integrity of the landscape.
Project 9. Rehabilitate Plantings Along
Railroad Open Cuts to More Closely
Represent Design Intent
Project Description
This project would affect the non- contributing
plantings on the slopes on the east and west
sides of the north and south railroad open
cuts (see Figure 6.7). This project would
repair erosion and rehabilitate the appearance
of the slopes around the open cuts to be
more in keeping with Kiley's intention for
the plantings. This project would include a
predesign review of the 1966 design drawings
including grading plans and Kiley planting
plan for this area. Because some of the original
plants in the Kiley plan did not survive well in
this location, the design process would also
consider potential substitutions that convey
similar form and character to the intended
planting but are more hardy and suitable to
site conditions. The project could also include
assessment, repair and stabilization of the
south tunnel slope (an existing PMIS project
that could be coordinated with this project).
The project would also include repair and
stabilization of other eroding slopes around
the tunnels and cuts, and would refer to the
stormwater management plan, this CLR, and
other existing studies. The project would also
accommodate security and sustainability goals.
Justification
The redesign of plantings in this area would
bring them closer in appearance to the
contributing plantings throughout other areas
of the Memorial, as well as ameliorate erosion
and drainage problems, has the potential to
increase the integrity of the landscape.
B
jEf!
■^
1 •. ..•(. "V-.: 1 JO^^M ft ■ •■' .i ••¥* V v 1 w% .■■;.
i
Figure 6.7 Project 9: Rehabilitate Plantings Along Railroad Open Cuts to More Closely Represent Design
Intent.
6-18 / IMPLEMENTATION PROJECTS
JEFFERSON NATIONAL EXPANSION MEMORIAL CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT
Project 9 Implementation Process
TASK EXPERTISE NEEDED COST IMPLICATIONS
1.0 Predesign
Parking garage area Historical landscape archi-
concept plan tect, Memorial staff, NPS
Region and/or DSC staff
Up-front planning costs; cost of compliance
review (verify compliance requirements);
potential efficiency due to having a coordi-
nated sub-area plan in place to streamline
implementation (by having estimated
phasing, budget, scope, compliance
completed); phasing allows a coordinated
process for budgeting
2.0 Schematic Design
Develop alternatives for Historical landscape archi-
planting (by phase) tect, Memorial staff, NPS
Region and/or DSC staff
If pre-design tasks are not completed, some
of the steps would have to occur in sche-
matic design phase, potentially increasing
costs
3.0 Design Development
Develop selected alterna- Historical landscape archi-
tive into detailed planting tect, Memorial staff, NPS
plan Region and/or DSC staff
Not applicable
4.0 Construction
Documents
Develop construction Historical landscape archi-
contract documents for tect, Memorial staff, NPS
planting Region and/or DSC staff
Not applicable
5.0 Construction
Install plants Landscape contractor;
Memorial staff, NPS Region
and/or DSC staff
Historic preservation factor may apply;
complexity of construction logistics;
maintenance of ongoing operations (visitor
experience); variable costs including: extent
of protection needed for plants to remain,
possible alterations to irrigation system
configuration, extent of lawn areas requiring
repair, availability, size, and age of new
plants, date (season) of planting
6.0 Documentation
Post-construction docu- Historical landscape archi-
mentation of changes to tect, Memorial staff, NPS
landscape Region and/or DSC staff
Would likely involve professional fees above
and beyond a typical scope of services for
design; could be integrated into maintenance
planning process or undertaken as part of a
CLR Part III treatment documentation
JEFFERSON NATIONAL EXPANSION MEMORIAL CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT
IMPLEMENTATION PROJECTS / 6-19
This table identifies the phasing of
implementation projects in terms of how far
into the future they are recommended to occur.
Phasing Chart of Projects
PROJECT
WITHIN 5 YEARS
5-10 YEARS
10-15 YEARS
1. Stormwater Management Plan
•
2. Visual Quality Assessment and Concept
Plan
•
3. Enhance Screening of Service Areas
and Maintenance Facility
4. Rehabilitate Pond Area Plantings
•
5. Rehabilitate Single-Species Allee
Plantings
•
6. Rehabilitate System of Walks
•
7. Overlooks Historic Structure Condition
Assessment and Treatment Plan
•
8. Redesign Parking Garage Plantings
•
9. Rehabilitate Plantings Along
Railroad Open Cuts
•
6-20 / IMPLEMENTATION PROJECTS
JEFFERSON NATIONAL EXPANSION MEMORIAL CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT
Selected Bibliography
JEFFERSON NATIONAL EXPANSION MEMORIAL CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT
THIS PAGE LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK
JEFFERSON NATIONAL EXPANSION MEMORIAL CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT
Books
Dirr, Michael A. Manual of Woody Landscape
Plants. Illinois: Stipes Publishing Company,
1983.
Hughes, Mary "Dan Kiley's Site Design for
the Gateway Arch," in Preserving Modern
Landscape Architecture: Papers from the
Wave Hill-National Park Service Conference.
Cambridge, Massachusetts: Spacemaker Press,
1995
Peter, John. Interviews with the Greatest
Architects of the Twentieth Century, The Oral
History of Modern Architecture. New York:
Harry N. Abrams, Incorporated, 1994.
Prudon, Theodore H.M Preservation of
Modem Architecture. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley
and Sons, 2008.
Saarinen, Aline B., ed. Eero Saarinen on
His Work. New Haven and London: Yale
University Press, 1962.
Spade, Rupert. Library of Contemporary
Architects: Eero Saarinen. New York: Simon
and Schuster, 1971.
Magazines
"Competition: Jefferson National Expansion
Memorial." Progressive Architecture, May 1948.
Dean, Andrea O. "Eero Saarinen in
Perspective." AIA Journal, November 1981.
"Jefferson Memorial Competition Winners."
Architectural Record, April 1948.
"Jefferson National Expansion Memorial
Competition Winners." The Architectural
FORUM, v. 88, March 1948.
Kiley, Daniel Urban. "Jefferson National
Expansion Memorial." Process Architecture,
No. 33, October 1982, 109.
"Revised Scheme, Revised Hope, For
Saarinen's St. Louis Arch." Architectural
Record, v.122, November 1957.
"St. Louis Selects Modern Design.'Mrt News,
v.47, March 1948.
Newspaper Articles
"Arch Landscaping." St. Louis Post-Dispatch,
December 19, 1971.
"Arch Landscaping Contract Let." St. Louis
Post-Dispatch, June 20, 1970.
"Arch That Triumphed Attacked As Like One
Mussolini Approved." St. Louis Post-Dispatch,
February 26, 1948.
"Beauty Not Bickering." St. Louis Post-Dispatch,
February 26, 1968.
"Bids opened on new Arch project." St. Louis
Post-Dispatch, March 26, 1971.
"Big 'Hairpin' Memorial Leaves St. Louis
Cold. "Akron, Ohio Beacon Journal, February
27, 1948.
Brown, Sharon A. "Jefferson National
Expansion Memorial: The 1947-1948
Competition." Gateway Heritage, Magazine of
the Missouri Historical Society, Winter 1980.
"Gateway Arch Design Tested in Wind Tunnel."
The St. Louis Globe-Democrat, January 7, 1965.
Louchheim, Aline B. "For a Modern
Monument: An Audacious Design." New York
Times, February 29, 1948.
Newman, M.W. "Landscape designer wins
Brunner prize." The Chicago Tribune, May 18,
1995.
Rice, Jack. "Landscaping At Last For The
Arch." St. Louis Post-Dispatch, September 20,
1970.
"Riverfront Garden Started." St. Louis Post-
Dispatch, March 30, 1951.
"Riverfront Garden Will Be Built To Improve
Memorial." St. Louis Post-Dispatch, February
20,1951.
JEFFERSON NATIONAL EXPANSION MEMORIAL CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT
BIBLIOGRAPHY / Bib-3
"Saarinen Calls For Boulevard on Riverfront."
St. Louis Post-Dispatch, April 19, i960.
"St. Louis Riverfront Proposals of the Last 45
Years." St. Louis Post-Dispatch, November 17,
1946.
"Sunken Garden To Be Laid Out Soon On
River Front Memorial." St. Louis Star Times,
February 20, 1951.
"Tidy Up River Front." St. Louis Globe-
Democrat, January 18, 1951.
"$20,000 River Front Landscape Fund
Okayed." St. Louis Star Times, February 9, 1951.
"What's in St. Louis: The Region at a Glance."
St. Louis Commerce Magazine, March 2009.
"Winning Arch Not Fascist Invention, Says
Award Jury." St. Louis Post-Dispatch, March 14,
1948.
Wood, Sue Ann. "Nurserymen Fear Arch
Landscape may Stay Bleak." The St. Louis
Globe-Democrat, February 5, 1970.
Wood, Sue Ann. "The Greening of the
Riverfront." The St. Louis Globe-Democrat,
May 29, 1971.
NPS Reports
Lindenbusch, John H. Historic Structure
Report, and Historic Grounds Study. Prepared
for the National Park Service, Department of
Interior, March 3, 1976.
McClelland, Linda. "Evaluating the
Significance of Additions and Accretions," ^4
National Register White Paper, 2008.
Page, Robert R., Cathy Gilbert, and Susan
Dolan. A Guide to Cultural Landscape Reports:
Contents, Process, and Techniques, 1998.
U.S. Department of Interior. Administrative
History Jefferson National Expansion Memorial
National Historic Site, Part I. The report
was completed by Sharon A. Brown for the
National Park Service, Department of Interior,
1984.
. Director's Order 28: Cultural Resources
Management Guideline (DO-28), Release No. 5,
1997.
. List of Classified Structures, fefferson
National Expansion Memorial. The draft report
was completed by Architectural Historian
Dena Sanford for the National Park Service,
Department of Interior, 1995.
. Lobby Interpretive Plan. The plan was
submitted by the National Park Service in
cooperation with Daniel Quan Design, 1993.
. Master Plan for fefferson National
Expansion Memorial. The plan was prepared
by William Everhart for the National Park
Service, Department of Interior, 1962.
. Resources Management Plan. The plan
was prepared by Cultural Resources Curator
Kathryn Thomas for the National Park Service,
Department of Interior, 1995.
_. The Secretary of the Interior's
Standards for the Treatment of Historic
Properties with Guidelines for the Treatment of
Cultural Landscapes, 1996.
. Statement for Interpretation. The plan
was prepared by Park Ranger Dave Uhler for
the National Park Service, Department of
Interior, 1995.
. Statement for Management, fefferson
National Expansion Memorial. The report was
recommended by Superintendent Gary W
Easton, National Park Service, Department of
Interior, 1993-1994.
. Urban Innovation and Practical
Partnerships: An Administrative History of
fefferson National Expansion Memorial, 1980-
1991. The report was completed by Historian
Bob Moore for the National Park Service,
Department of Interior, 1994.
Bib-4 / BIBLIOGRAPHY
JEFFERSON NATIONAL EXPANSION MEMORIAL CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT
Department of Interior Publications
U.S. Department of Interior. National Register
Bulletin 15: How to Apply the National Register
Criteria for Evaluation. The bulletin was
completed by the Interagency Resources
Division of the National Park Service, U.S.
Department of the Interior, revised 1991.
. Guidelines for the Treatment of Historic
Landscapes. A draft was prepared by the
Preservation Assistance Division Technical
Preservation Services Branch of the National
Park Service, Department of Interior, May
1992.
. National Register Bulletin 16A: How to
Complete the National Register Registration
Form. The bulletin was completed by the
Interagency Resources Division of the National
Park Service, U.S. Department of Interior, 1991.
. National Register Bulletin 22: Guidelines
for Evaluating and Nominating Properties That
Have Achieved Significance Within the Last
50 Years. The bulletin was completed by the
Interagency Resources Division of the National
Park Service, U.S. Department of Interior, no
date.
. National Register Bulletin 24: Guidelines
for Local Surveys: A Basis For Preservation
Planning. The bulletin was completed by the
Interagency Resources Division of the National
Park Service, U.S. Department of Interior, 1977.
. National Register of Historic Places
Inventory, Nomination Form for fefferson
National Expansion Memorial. The nomination
was prepared by Laura Souilliere Harrison,
1985.
.fefferson National Expansion Memorial
Gateway Arch, National Historic Landmark
Nomination Form, prepared by Laura
Souilliere Harrison, 1987.
. The Secretary of the Interior's Standards
for the Treatment of Historic Properties
1992. The pamphlet was completed by the
Preservation Assistance Division of the
National Park Service, Department of Interior,
1992.
JEFFERSON NATIONAL EXPANSION MEMORIAL CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT
BIBLIOGRAPHY / Bib-5
THIS PAGE LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK
JEFFERSON NATIONAL EXPANSION MEMORIAL CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT
Appendix A: List of Landscape
Contracts & Contractors
JEFFERSON NATIONAL EXPANSION MEMORIAL CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT
APPENDIX / A-l
THIS PAGE LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK
JEFFERSON NATIONAL EXPANSION MEMORIAL CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT
The following is a list of major landscape
contracts and contractors who completed
work on the Arch grounds. A second list of
contracts, which were not researched in detail
for the purposes of this report, is also included.
Kozeny- Wagner Construction Company
(Construction Contract)
Contract #: 14-10-7-Q71-267
Project No.: TEF S363
Duration: Tune lqyo-Tuly 1972
Description: Site Development-Phase I;
Schedule I-Grading and Drainage, Schedule
H-Waterproofing and Drainage of Visitor
Center, Schedule Ill-Seeding. The project
consists of grading along the north-south axis
of Arch, Visitor Center roof water proofing,
drainage, and seeding.
Plans and Specs.: Drawing No.: 366/41001-C
dated August iq6q, revisions 1/70 and 4/70;
drawn by Patten and checked by Ronscavage,
EODC and Western Service Center Office of
Environmental Planning and Design-
Cost: $41Q,QS'yOO
Documentation: Original specifications; plans;
Globe-Democrat 6/20/70.
Millstone Associates, Inc. (Construction
Contract)
Contract #: 4Q70B10107
Duration: August 13, iQ7i-August 1972
Description: Site Development, Phase II,
Schedules I & II; sidewalks, roads to HVAC
and SHIPREC. 280 tree wells, 14 concrete
benches, topsoil.
Plans and Specs.: developed by NPS -
366/41009 (18 sheets).
Cost: Unknown
Documentation: Specifications for Site
Development Phase II; Weekly Field Reports
(TEFF Archives, unprocessed Rennison
Collection)
Suburban Tree Service (Construction
Contract)
Contract #: 4970B20053
Work Order #: 6525-8025-404 (366-03X20025)
Project No.: JEF-S371
Duration: 11/30/71-5/15/73
Description: Planting Plan-Phase I. Grounds
construction, grounds preparation, and
seedling tree planting. 573 trees including
Rosehill ash, black pine, and Eastern redbud.
Planting along the north-south axis up to rest
areas on west side and up to overlooks on east
side. Levee block surrounding trees. Pines and
Redbud planted on west side of RR tunnels.
Plans and Specs.: Drawing No.: 366/41006
dated August 1971 by John Ronscavage,
Western Service Center Office of
Environmental Planning and Design.
Cost: $135,562.50
Documentation: Completion Report dated
April 16, 1974. Photograph captions on last
three pages but photos not included. (JEFF
Archives, unprocessed Rennison Collection).
Comments: October 1972 there was failure of
ash tree predominantly on the north end of
the site. Experts judged the cause to be excess
moisture and/or planting too deep.
Millstone Associates, Inc. (Construction
Contract)
Contract #: 4970B2009
Duration: June 1972
Description: Site Development, Phase II,
Schedules III & IV; sprinkler system.
Plans and Specs.: Unknown.
Cost: Unknown
Documentation: Weekly Field Reports (JEFF
Archives, unprocessed Rennison Collection).
Harland Bartholomew (A/E Contract)
Contract #: CX 2000-3-0033
Work Directive #: 0033-73-1
Duration: 1/73- contract completion date
unknown
Description: Title I: preparation of topo-
graphical or field surveys, test borings,
other subsurface data; Title II: adaptation of
Government designs, drawings, and specs.,
preparation of preliminary and final working
drawings, advice and interpretation of plans
and specs, during construction; Title III:
supervision and inspection of construc-
tion, review and approval of shop drawings,
preparation of operation manuals, preparation
of as-constructed drawings.
Plans and Specs.: Drawing No. 366/41019
resulted from this contract.
Cost: $78,430. 00 before change orders
Documentation: Copy of contract, correspon-
dence
Hankins Construction Company
(Construction Contract)
Contract #: CX6000-4-9017
Duration: 6/21/74-11/20/74
JEFFERSON NATIONAL EXPANSION MEMORIAL CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT
APPENDIX / A-3
Description: Temporary Maintenance
Building.
Project #: 6520-5591
Plans and Specs.: Produced by Roy J. Scown,
Assistant Chief of Maintenance, JEFF. (NPS
366/60010, JEFF Archives, Record Unit 120,
D-120-519).
Cost: $57,723.00
Documentation: Completion Report -
Temporary Maintenance Building, (JEFF
Archives, unprocessed Rennison Collection).
Sahrmann Construction Company
(Construction Contract-concrete)
Contract #: CX-6000-4-9018
Work Order #: 6525-7601-503
Duration: 8/12/74-11/26/74
Description: Overlook Paving.
Plans and Specs.: HBA; drawing # 366/41018A
(9 sheets)
Cost: $116,330.10
Documentation: Completion Report.
Notes: Other contracts as subcontractor under
Schuster Engineering included ponds in 1979,
and walks in 1980.
Harding Electric Company (Construction
Contract)
Contract #: 6000-4-9009
Duration: 2/18/74-8/3/74
Description: Walk and Area Lighting. 45 light
fixtures, standards, etc.
Plans and Specs.: DSC, J. Johanningsmeier
Cost: $148,580.98
Documentation: Completion Report-contains
photographs and they show levee block
around the trees.
Kozeny- Wagner Construction Company
(Construction Contract)
Contract #: CX6000-5-9005
Work Order #: 6520-7602-503
Duration: 7/1/75-6/10/76
Description: Monumental Entrance.
Subcontractors: Allied Plumbing Contractors
(drainage); Louis Payne Electric Company
(electric); Valley Sod Inc.
Plans & Specs.: HBA; preliminary surveys by
HBA; drawing # 366/41031
Cost: $612,137.69
Documentation: Contract, completion report,
receipts, daily and weekly work reports. (JEFF
Archives, unprocessed Rennison Collection).
Harland Bartholomew and Associates (A/E
Contract)
Contract #: CX 2000-7-0013
Duration: 4/77- contract completion date
unknown
Description: Reformat Existing Site
Development, Drawings, Specifications and
Update Cost Estimates.
Plans and Specs.: HB&A; Resulted in drawings
366-41037, 41039, 41035.
Cost: $94,757.18
Documentation: Copy of contract, corre-
spondence (Denver Service Center Storage
Accession No: 079-86-0008, copy on file in
JEFF Archives).
Schuster Engineering (Construction Contract)
Contract #: CX 6000-8-9003
Project #: S427
Duration: 3/78 - contract completion date
unknown
Description: Site Development Phase I, II, III;
Walk and Area Lighting. This project consists
of the installation of: water mains, storm
drainage system, electrical distribution, and
paving of concrete road and walkways, and
landscaping including top soiling, seeding, and
tree wells.
Subcontractors: Sahrmann Contracting
Company (concrete)
Gartland Company Incorporated (plumbing)
Samuel Kraus Company (engineering)
Shelton & Sons Landscaping (planting)
Plans and Specs.: HB&A; drawing #'s
366/41035; 366/41037; 366/41039
Cost: $2,890,179,89 initial bid price
Documentation: Specifications for Site
Development, Phases I, II, III, Walk and
Area Lighting (JEFF Archives, unprocessed
Rennison Collection).
Shelton & Sons Landscaping (Construction
Contract)
Contract #: CX 6000-9-9003, package 206
Project #: (I.EB.) 6520-79A
Duration: 1978-1981; 605 days
Description: Planting Plan-Phase II. This
project consists of site landscaping including
(l)planting trees, shrubs, and ground cover,
(2) seeding lawn areas, (3) spreading imported
topsoil, and (4) extension of irrigation system.
Plans and Specs.: Drawing No. 366/41047
(as constructed drawings) dated 12/78,
A-4 / APPENDIX
JEFFERSON NATIONAL EXPANSION MEMORIAL CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT
Ronscavage, Stewart, Wenk Denver Service
Center, 23 sheets.
Cost: $1,031,030.20
Documentation: Work reports, correspon-
dence, receipts, misc. (JEFF Archives, unpro-
cessed Rennison Collection).
Schuster Engineering, Inc. (Construction
Contract)
Contract #: CX 6000-9-9005, package 225
Duration: 1981
Description: Entrance repairs
Plans and Specs.: Unknown.
Cost: $598,951.00
Documentation: Firearms Fund Insurance
Companies, correspondence, general
form, status inquiry (in box labeled 'Site
Development, Phases I, II, and III, Walk and
Area Lighting').
Treeland Nurseries (Construction Contract)
Contract #: CX6000-5-0049; File S7212
Federal Records Center
Duration: 9/26/85-5/27/86
Description: Replace mugo pine, pyracantha,
and fragrant sumac on top of levee slope,
south of Monumental Entrance, along
fenceline and railroad open cut walls, north
and south of the stairway, on slope around
south service center entrance to visitors center,
around fenced area of generator building.
Plans and Specs.: Unknown
Cost: Unknown
Documentation: Administrative History by
Bob Moore, p.115, Superintendent's Annual
Report for 1986, p.7.
Treeland Nurseries (Construction Contract)
Contract #: CX6000-6-0032; File S7217 Federal
Records Center
Duration: 9/23/86-12/19/86
Description: Replace dead trees. Grounds
crew planted 68 of these new trees, while
Treeland Nurseries planted a total of 110 trees
and 1,330 shrubs.
Plans and Specs.: Unknown.
Cost: Unknown.
Documentation: Administrative History by
Bob Moore, p.115, Superintendent's Annual
Report for 1986, p.7.
Other Contract (less information known):
Saarinen & Associates (A/E Contract)
Contract #: 14-10-529-2039
Duration: 1959-1969 (contract completed by
successor firm of Kevin Roche John Dinkeloo
and Associates)
Description: Design and construction docu-
ments for Gateway Arch.
Plans and Specs.: Saarinen and Associates
Documentation: Miscellaneous correspon-
dence and contract-related material (JEFF
Archives, Record Unit 106, box 38, folder 17).
Comments: at least six amendments to
contract (sixth made in 1963). The contract was
not researched extensively for the purposes of
this report. Most information could potentially
be found in the JEFF Archives.
Davey Tree Service (Construction Contract)
Duration: 1986
Description: Transplant 28 Rosehill ash trees.
Fred Weber, Inc. (Construction Contract)
Duration: 1987
Description: Parking garage and landscaping.
Hillside Gardens (Construction Contract)
Duration: November 1988
Description: Replaced 186 trees, 18 species.
Documentation: Administrative History by
Bob Moore, p.115, Superintendent's Annual
Report for 1986, p.7.
Hoel-Steffen (Construction Contract)
Contract #: 14-10-0232-774
Duration: 10/19/65-10/17/66
Description: Gateway Arch and Interim Visitor
Center
Rock Hill Mechanical Corporation
(Construction Contract)
Contract #: CX 6000-6-9011
Duration: 8/13/76-3/28/78
Description: Visitor Center, Mechanical
Systems Improvements
Project #: 6520-6907
Schuster Engineering, Inc. (Construction
Contract)
Contract #: CX 6000-8-9004
Description: Generator Relocation.
Kozeny- Wagner (Construction Contract)
Contract #: 4970B10045
Duration: c. 1971-72
Description: Visitor Center Addition.
JEFFERSON NATIONAL EXPANSION MEMORIAL CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT
APPENDIX / A-5
THIS PAGE LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK
JEFFERSON NATIONAL EXPANSION MEMORIAL CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT
Appendix B: Sample Inventory
and Condition Assessment Forms
JEFFERSON NATIONAL EXPANSION MEMORIAL CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT
APPENDIX / B-l
THIS PAGE LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK
Appendix H: Sample! nvcntory & Cuiidkioji Asses sitienl Forms
page 221
Jefferson National Rxpanxim: Memorial
INSPECTION SHEET -VEGETATION
Caic&iiy; Slim hi & OrtHtttcteom
I
reaiure Name & ID*:
55
J j- _ _ ri - i—
S f S Q 3 s 1
u - * - 3 a ll.
J! E ** * ™ J? E
O < J B « K It
Commcnl an condition, inx age.
fidil iJijEtifHis.and work ncntcd:
I
II It I
n^ 1* ft 5
II |li |3 a
Cwkr.
t -"1 il-l'-M, IV^f VL-ihJiiH -1
H-ccwinrniVJ FifuipiiMf ;
>l-|. UttJ* iViic iw^
■Vih»...L'i
: -!■■■:. "jt'i w^rk
.'■u*-:i jvll
■— CTlliriJ cwrditKMi-
I m pec ml Uj;
pa*;
page 222
Appendix \i: SajnpJe Inventory & Condition Assessment forms
Jefferson Ntttionmi Extmnsion Memorial
INVENTORY OF TREES
insfk^itd by
Tree Inventory <£ Condition Assessment
. unit H dams
%
a,
i
o
:?
2 J>
J:
Commenti
Origin Cades:
1 = init. Fltnsc t
2 m ifljf. finite IS
3 = replacement in-kind
4 = mtrtxUteett oiler Fhase II
RcCtiittmciwtctl Astton Codes:
1 = replace iii'kmd
2 = replace w/ atitnun* specie*
3 a dit tun rcjtface
Statin Cwles:
(••mi! - tiimi' Cotitliiiim
Fait '— Fait Condition
Four c Poor Condition
("unit = Gone, Kftmtrril
Ylireal -; Tlirenteiitd
Append in B: Sample Inventory <fc Condi ii[>n Assessment Forms
JESE
223
Jefferson Notional Expansion Memorial
INSPECTION SHEET - CIRCULATION
Catejjw) 1 : RiixJs A Parking Arens
I
I
Figure rfjune & ID* l £ it ,£ o £ j« fi B O
Hi*
Cuiuiuctil uu eumiitmn. fifltl
diagnosis. [irtrj wui k nccdirJ.
A 7,
f 1!
i§
-si
I
Co*i;
0-MB f*H lUtti
l-uhiiricio^r'h'c-'-irl"'-^
Nmn'FIKIlJvil- TljfP|i|HlH
7*fiir\ fir*rill IrtnV WivLf
n^nxuitn
'-|--, < 'iCV'!! --Vl«!k.
4mh jm*
"■nkinl cmdilivfl
I ■> : r- - V -.1 by;
Daw:
page 224
A ppendix B: Sample Inventory & Condi lion Assess JlieiH Forms
Jefferson National ExjHirHtiott Memorial
INSPECTION SHEET - FURNISHINGS & OBJECTS
CaleRjvy;
If
Ml j.
1
1-cHure Niunc * IL>#:
lllflllii
Conmicnl on condition, field
tlK\gaasK,3wi wfjrt needed:
i II J! I
■t
1 W * I
--
L-.-,i;i.
l-UIU[Klti j «><liln«
KVL'lHkViVPKk J ll#|Hl|M»tlH -
J^fl". "M* KM1K WKV
■t-.f».j|jHJ
)«l«Hf. Mob «wt
■I^Cfl/Ht
■^iLHi-iir I *.1lrw» 1
1b»J1C««J by:
part:
Appendix C: List of
Repositories and People
Consulted
JEFFERSON NATIONAL EXPANSION MEMORIAL CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT
APPENDIX / C-l
THIS PAGE LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK
JEFFERSON NATIONAL EXPANSION MEMORIAL CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT
This list consists of all contacts made by Gina
Bellavia or Gregg Bleam for the purposes
of completing this Cultural Landscape
Report and the design analysis Evolution of
a Landscape: Eero Saarinen and Dan Kiley's
Collaborative Design for Jefferson National
Expansion Memorial completed by Gregg
Bleam in 1996.
Office of Dan Kiley, East Farm, Charlotte,
Vermont 05445
Several interviews were conducted regarding
Dan Kiley's collaboration with Eero Saarinen
on the 1948 Competition plan and subsequent
design evolution. Mr. Kiley also shared
sketches, drawings, and correspondence from
his files.
Kevin Roche and John Dinkeloo & Associates,
20 Davis St., Hamden, Connecticut 06517
Kevin Roche and John Dinkeloo worked at the
former office of Eero Saarinen & Associates
and were involved with the Arch project. Gregg
Bleam interviewed the two architects regarding
their part in the design process and their
knowledge of Saarinen's design philosophy
and his relationship with Dan Kiley. Mr. Bleam
also spent a significant amount of time looking
through the "Saarinen Archives" and was given
permission to copy most of the drawings for
this project.
Bob Burley, The Burley Partnership, Waitsfield,
Vermont 05673
Mr. Burley is an architect who worked for
Eero Saarinen from 1956-1963. He was directly
related to the Arch project and was specifically
responsible for the design of the entrances
into the Arch visitor center and transportation
system.
Terry Boyle, Burlington, Vermont
Mr. Boyle worked at the Office of Dan Kiley
from 1959-1961 and again from 1965-1967.
He was directly related to the Arch project,
particularly with the evolution of the landscape
design.
John Ronscavage, 4195 Dover Street, Wheat
Ridge, Colorado 80033
Mr. Ronscavage was a landscape architect
with the National Park Service and specifi-
cally with the Western Service Center and
Denver Service Center Offices of Design and
Construction. He was the Team Captain for the
JNEM Design Team when the National Park
Service took over the project from Dan Kiley.
Jim Holland, 3815 N. Perry Park Road, Sedalia,
Colorado 80135
Mr. Holland was a project manager with
the NPS Denver Service Center and was a
construction inspector during the landscape
construction of the Arch grounds.
Eldridge Lovelace, 5 Brookside Lane, St. Louis,
Missouri 63124
Mr. Lovelace was the project manager for
Harland Bartholomew & Associates in
the early 1970s when the firm was hired to
complete construction documents for the Arch
landscape.
Joseph Jensen, 211 Judy Street, Petersburg, West
Virginia 26847
Mr. Jensen worked for both Eero Saarinen &
Associates and the National Park Service and
was directly involved with the Arch project.
Bob Kelly, 413 Williams Drive, Eureka,
Missouri 63025
Mr. Kelly was the Facility Manager at JEFF for
approximately 24 years. He was involved in
site development through all major phases of
landscape construction.
Mike Mayberry, 808 Marshall Road, Valley
Park, Missouri 63088
Mr. Mayberry worked for Shelton & Sons
Landscaping and was involved in the second
major phase of landscape planting on the Arch
grounds in the late 1970s.
Bob Chandler, Golden Gate NRA, Building
201, Fort Mason, San Francisco, California
94 12 3
Mr. Chandler is a former JEFF Superintendent
and was responsible for the Arch Grounds
Seed Mix and the implementation of tree
grates around the Rosehill Ash trees.
Nancy Baker, NPS-DSC, 12795 W Alameda
Pkwy., P.O. Box 25287, Denver, Colorado 80225
Ms. Baker was a project inspector working for
the Denver Service Center in the 1980s. She
was the project inspector for the final planting
on the Arch grounds in 1980-81.
JEFFERSON NATIONAL EXPANSION MEMORIAL CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT
APPENDIX / C-3
Bob Steenhagen, 2473 S. Carr Ct, Lakewood,
Colorado 80227
Mr. Steenhagen worked at the NPS Eastern
Service Center while the Arch project
was being completed. According to Mr.
Steenhagen, he was associated with Dan Kiley
on a personal level and was not directly associ-
ated with JNEM.
Marlin Steward, NPS-DSC, 12795 W. Alameda
Pkwy., P.O. Box 25287, Denver, Colorado 80225
Mr. Steward was a landscape architect with the
National Capital Region when the Arch project
was being completed. He helped pull together
the final planting plans and irrigation plan.
Mike Hunter, NPS-DSC New River Gorge
Support Office, P.O. Box 242, Glen Jean, West
Virginia 25846
Mr. Hunter worked with the Denver Service
Center from 1978-1980. He worked at JEFF
as project manager supervising and directing
work for much of the second major phase of
development.
Repositories Consulted:
Denver Service Center Technical Information
Center
12795 W. Alameda Pkwy.
P.O. Box 25287
Denver, Colorado 80225-0287
303.969.2134
Jefferson National Expansion Memorial -
Archives
11 North Fourth Street
St. Louis, Missouri 63102
314.425.4468
Mercantile Library
510 Locust Street, Sixth Floor
St. Louis, Missouri 63101
314.621.0670
Office of Dan Kiley
East Farm
Charlotte, Vermont 05445
802.425. .2141
Kevin Roche and John Dinkeloo & Associates
20 Davis Street
Hamden, Connecticut 06517
203.777.7251
C-4 / APPENDIX
JEFFERSON NATIONAL EXPANSION MEMORIAL CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT
Appendix D: Copy of National
Register Nomination Form
JEFFERSON NATIONAL EXPANSION MEMORIAL CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT
APPENDIX / D-l
THIS PAGE LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK
JEFFERSON NATIONAL EXPANSION MEMORIAL CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT
Appendix P: Copy Of National Register Ntirninatinn Fnrm
pa&& 231
UMTLH SI A 1 !> UI.I'AK I Ml % I i »!■ I III. IM 1.H IUK
NATIONAL REGISTER 03 : HISTORIC PLACES
INVENTOR V ~ NOMINATION FOKM
ion kkdlhal rnor'iimES
VF J,VL-Q?2.
FOfi fiJ"S U£C DKLV
RtCtlVLD
[£JNAM£
stc instructions in ww r o complctc national wf G^rc/r rt3#ws
TVPF ft! I. f NTfltFS -- (XiMPI FTP APFL ICAH1 F Mjr.TlOMS {lJfi./tff f d7±A
J~f-7
£JU
JefrDf^an Kati dual Extifinnloh f-icwieri ftl
Tlji; Cat-f^fpy Arch , Tlic Olfl Courthouse, rind The 014 Cathedral
[£) LOCATION
iin[El 1 NlltlDIB
13 Uorth dth Street
. Kill 'Qt Pmrni lOlrOM
^LIT. ID1MR1
i.rth^iiLiiiurtfcL I'l^'IU^T
-': , -■ .'."JJLIi
im(inn*<if
"1
nwi
TJ'JUI
as
CO
«fl
5JD
[^CLASSIFICATION
(}*li)tf>
tl/j,}
CATEGORY
ovj.Mtnfm*
STATUS
pnescnTLtsE
_lt:kiiiiti
Inwc
jLOGCUMIdn
_*4*i LULl unt
XJJUSluu
—iWLurtWiiSi
xjmwn
—LrHOCCunfu
—COUMInOAL.
£.rduu
_*tpnjcnjm
—tflTH
i.W0Jll IH motile Si
_ I QUI, iliD-mi-
_nnv±r t ft(Si»lh«
_JITi
1 ' Ll L LI C f C d U J 3 1 T 1 N
fttccrsiauj;
_tH XkK WNMtHT
JCkluqequi
—OkJtCI
^jipmptliS
..Via PijTfiirts
_05VI(lHMirn
_«.'LHII'IL
—HifcGMnUfclnto
JlTCi UWM iTKif.l If
—■NUUMJIML
_i UWMMHOI
_no
*0LII * irt
_OlflI*'
) AGENCY
_ J.5. ijiitioncJ, i'arV. Service^ ja cvest Itacionsl Office
s'l hm"i~injwc£"(h
170? Jachfion Street
tin rc-^n
OmalifL
w;"iity fjr
Kcbrukti
(LOCATION Qi-' LEGAL DESCXiF'H ON
"""""*■*" U.S. Sat tonal fart 5rrvi gc , IWSO
KlHlT*PUrMHR
17cj<? Jackson Street
PTT.Wrtl
!' l ';in 1 n
ilAtt
tube
E3 REPRESENTATION IN EXISTING SUil VEVS
'Historic American ''liU ') i.nc;_5.urj£fiv
JMII
\9l£ ¥.PImji*L _Sr*TI ,.tWWr _iGtAL
Jiu^trima ftBt Library of Conr;rc5 3
Qiv.iawft
ii»r*
Sj.C.
(Sew Continuation Sheet, page 1)
puge 232 Appendix D: Copy of National Register Nomination Form
U M I i- ! > VI ^ 1 1 .5 ' 'I -I" A K TM L.M ' IU ■ I I tl i 1 >iTI It 1 1>K f OJ1 Wf j. U 5E OM LY
NATIONAL PilHK Stfl vltt
NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES
INVENTOR Y - N0M1 NAT! ON FORM
KLCtlVfcO
CONriWUATIOHSHttT ITEM NUMBfn 6 PAGE 1
TITLE; List of Classified Structures
DATE : IS 7 5
FED F RAL
DEPOSITOR* FOfl SURVEY RECORDS i U.S. national PftrK Service, (Iidve»t
ltd ,:i '.-,•■. .j '. Office, OmUia,, 11 ■:.■ b ra ." it ,\
TlTLS: National Survey of Historic Sites una Buildings
DATES : I&ST-194S2
FRDeHAL
DEPOSITORY (■'Oft EUSVEY RECOHDG j Orficc of Arqtacoloty and Historic
PrftsflrviiLian , national Park Service, Wathihg^an , D.C.
Appendix D: Copy of National Register Noniiiiatitm Form p^n^ 211
^DESCRIPTION
corjDirmn check one Check one
_lXltLUNI ..Dl It'ilCn AH D _Ur<*,Ll[11L& S_OmfimftL El It
iLflODO _mji«!t i_*iHi'Ku _H(ing °*"
, ia.i, _UNE*rDiED
DESCRIBE THE PRESENT *ND OFU&IHAL (IF KNQWMj f> HY&itflL M'PtAHAHLt
lUc "business center of old St, Louis grew up alon;; '„hc leveii, where the river f rout was
the Junping-off place for Journeys westward. This urea declined with the growth of the
rnilroaac, .mil .no:; 1 of the historic structures d i '-■• a r p pur ed » llic J<?ffcr&On National
Kxponsicm tlcenrial, including the Cntew.=y Ai'Cti mid the two vuttuiniftc historic buildings,
Lhc UiJ CV>nr Uirmr.i; end the Old Cathedral, now occupies tlie area.
The large, T-shaped district in nnuntovn St. Louis runs nlfing the Mississippi River
between the 1^0/l-'l0' bridge , to the south. Kid Etas bridge, to the n^rth. The Great
majority a J* the district is in the rectangular, park -like jxsrtion between the two
bridges , Wharf Street, end 1-55/1-70, This tu'Ci includes the GEtoTjr Arch end Vic i tor
Center, the Old. Cat!<ciirtl, two scenic overlooks, parking facilities, several pedestrian
potti;, ,-_-id two not-yat-ta^plctcd ponds.
The Memorial was designed by Eero Eaajincn in lS^T* The origiKtJ, cesign envisioned a
long, ^-iilmped pork w\th the :',i-.v Courthouse, (eii^tt blocks west of the present twBoriel)
01(1 Co ur '.hu 1.1 l; c , and the CuteViny Arch On a grand ccsl-vcsl axis linked by parks end
terolnitinc tt the Mississippi River. Tha land between the tvo courthouses has never
been cleared mid the £re-Sti belt axis hue never bscrt iwhicvedj "out Li:e vio-ul linX e<Hl
"">c clearly seen. Only the Injnd between the G&tcway Arch And the Old Courthouse has
ceen cleared and i r. corporate d into th« IfenttF&jL The final lirJ; to ti.t river's odce %
d grand stairway from the Arch to Wharf Street ana the levee, is now ur.de r const ruction.
The easternmost structure it the jfc-tey a y; Arch [No. 11CT), ucc'Jfl in l?t>r end finished
in 19&5- The taurine staiislor.E steel, str ess ed— st i n arch is £30 feet Iri^i;. An
inverted catenary curve, each leg. it ^ade up of double— wailed, equilateral triangle
ncctions. ThroughuUt, the Vails of each ucutiun izrc connected by high' strength Steel
rods, celling a sclf-aupportinc, strcssed-skin structure.
At ground. level, each section is 12 feet hi fh T and 5'< feet long on each oidei at the
top, the cacti One ore 8 feet high, and IT inct on each side. The Arch's 630-ioOt
Span straddles the underground Visiter Center and J.iusoma of h'estvard Expansion. Koused
at the top la an observation deck from which visitors arc afforded a thlrty-nila View
to the east and west.
Within the Hcnoriol boundaries, out a till owned by the Eobbji Cahtolic Archdiocese of
St. Louis, is th# nu Cf-thadrnl , It was heguir'in 1631 Troro ploas prcuurcd by
Joseph (jiveille And George x-faj-ton fwho also designed the lH2€ , brick courthouse
replied by the courthouse cited below) and it w« finished in lc-3 1 )- This {Jolist)
li&cstonc church in nodified Creek Revival is rectangular in plaa with a nv.it:, two
aisles, an apse, no traasepLs, and a steeple aho-vc Lh c entrance. A Inter, one-story,
addition runs Along the north and cast sides of the church.
The third najcr, and westernmost, structure in the IJeaorial is tha 01 rj St. t^i-j) s County
T: purt:ieiii?e ftlo. IIS l). Duilt betycen 1839 and 10£H, thic Greek Hevivtil, tln-ee-story,
ricK and Stone Structure Was designed by several architects over the period of lr.»
construction (Henry Singleton, tfilllae Twombly, MC-jr^c I. Eornctt, Robert 3. Hitchcli,
Thonuuj D. F. Lanhxurt, and William RuiubpliJ , or.d hu been altered several times, including
(Bee Continuation Sheet, page 2]
page 234
Appendix D; Copy ofNatiojial Register Nomination Form
UW l'fcl) ST A I |;S UI-.I' ARl HtM yl I [lb IM bKIOR
N Al ION A L P AH K ^t H Vlt£
NATIONAL REG1STEK OF HJ STOKI C 1'LA CSS
INVENTORY - NOMINATE ON FORM
rem Mrs use omr
HtCCtVCB
OATFJ FMTFRFn
COMTI NUATIQN SHEET
ITEM NUMUEH 7
■■A!.L 2
& pajor restoration and i"c node ling completed in 19 L£. Eafiien-lly 4 Greek Cross in
plan, tiitt junction or tho foui- wines fofwc s- central rotunda s imu te d uy a
Fen&inr.iiFicc style cast-iron done and lantern. In the interior of ttaa rotunda, tan
first three-stories ar» Creek iievival, tut the Itler, upjicr levels, including the
dom* and lantern arc Late Renaissance , almost Baroque, in sty la. Thi* uppei" done
It. elafciorE.tf.-iy decorated 1 with murals, especially fow LttWfcte duals orljjinnlly done
by Carl Wilnar, and sovcrnl later swale by tttoie i'ircnoli.
In the northeast iwiil southeast corners of the firk arc th& two SCflr.ic overlooks.
Designed to afford views of the river and the e vu 1 r enirtdint scenery , they ore
approached by a series of steps with variable slopes thit reflect the catenary
slope of the Gateway Arc is.
Appendix D: Copy of National Register Ntmiiiiatitin Ftirm
page 235
^UtiiCNU-lCANCE
FCniOD
_p>iHiipspaj*c
„P»0'P5»»
^l|« ill! '
X1P00-PI9S
JLIIH-
AflCAG OF SIENiriCANCE
_* nr 1 1 [ rjLi>DT 'H I'liUjFIH
—MlCHlOLOOV-iuiiTOitlt
_*cm tu li u f.i
Jt>nt unit,: urn
Kami
_4fiWllt'liE
—COMMUNICATIONS
—COMPAUNPI T flAN HI wfi
LOlPlUlVAllGsPl
—lOUCAllOM
KjQfSMKMfn;
_i«0uSTM
_niv|h i iqp<
CM IXK A H O JUS T L» Y OtLOW
—lAPrDiCAiC HWtCniP EC PUfli
L ■ ■ L ! -- TH=!I
_MlfMW
„uusic
_FHiiQ$gri4Tr
. -COLI liCi'fl OVL«t<M< f I
e_hi liohjk
_ scpihce
_&CULP>TUfi£
_ :,C r. !A UHUMAH1 I AMI*
—TUtftTill
—TflAH&KHtrhllQN
^m HIM I str^""
SPECIFIC DATfcS 1935 La present
QUUDtHj'AiHCii'ir.CT Ecl'o Stirii:cii
S,T M [ M £HT OF SIGNIFICANCE
The i'ij-^ v;.- entiiblishod in r?V.> to ocr.orialize the rela of Thelitis Jefferson and other;
responsible for the Nation's tentorial expansion to t>.e Pacific fir.d cf the countless
pioneers; vho explored aid settled '..ne i^eat p'Jnericiirt -Jest.
Tfj drmz.\ti.-.e the grevth and tho great sccial, p&litical, and ecor.oeic chances that
relieved JLti ihc fij-.c: o."* the Loui si aic i h urchor.e, the "ational ?k - K Service ini the city
of St. Louis undertook an cj-.tonsivt- development pr;j;riK, In i^liT, the Jefferson Nation
J&p/uisiup] l-iffforiul tjc soci a I i on held s national cermet itiorp to ieiect a design Tftr the
;,[cjBuriaJ,. The late ££ro Enuxi nen ' s icsicn Vila sclfctcd fros mure than £00 entries.
The central feature of the oasrincri Piftn it the fiiO-foot, stainless steel GntoVay Arch,
pvynbolixins St. Louis 7 historic £atevay role. The Arch, one of the scat eti silencing
engineer !:■,[; aac construe tion projects ever attempted, is in the *cnt of an inverted
cutcnary curve, The catenary is the soundest of all ureses, because til forces pass
through the logs Into the foundation. A variety of structural r_cLhods, sor-.c not normal
ur.ad for buildings, unique to this structure , vert etiployed by Srarinen. Tpie strcsaefi-
cfcin desigpp is tioil-ir -q airplaike i truttuT-al dcti^n and allc/^s the slitin to cn'ry all
EtrucLural lotdn without Eassivc interior frmrtnE' Fur th e more , the diiitn dccuided r.ei
construction techniqueo ; the arch u u s erected by unique, IPO- ton t slcci erccptr crar;ej
Dovmtoii on slccl tracks affixed to each arch leg. These cranes lifted and placed the
triangular sections. Artcr the final section "«; pXcced in the arch, the derricks crept
down, taking up their tracks and polishing the surface na tliey vent.
The Old Courthouse derives its aicnifitanco froa several areas - architecture, art,
engineering, and lav. The dome atop the Courthouse vac a cajor feat of engineering
and arcliitcttural design ulien it vur. huilt. Ir, lC^J » tlic CourLboUSe'e fifth architect,
Thomas Q. F. i.i^ji.un, prc-f-oscd »nd desicned a ncv Kc nais^ tjicc style diocbe to replace the
original, saollcr dcr.c. Hovever, it vai Lannau's successor, William Rumbald, vho,
between 16^9 ar.d 1^^, OCCOBpli S h s tl the detailed structural design and engineering,
vhich ho patented. Tlnr liRhtvcicbt iron cXclelnl riesifins oT the Kt. Louis tlocc and
its contritnonjrjr wi ^he klntional. CapitoJL vere unic.ye in the United States at that
timet "nd ^cr~ aaiian^ the first in the vorld. The designers tf many sta'.ehouscs took
their inspiration fron the national Capitol, but lin? it. Louis dume uas uumplctcd
one- and- fhalf ycdrs before, and in this sense >as the forerunner of those that followed
Tiie interior of Tuubold's dane, because c-f itn liehLuci<-iii structural design, eliovoe
'Dr a very liiQti rotunda, Chj the Art'hituct and the uurciista August Eecfcer, Charles Vlunr
.id Lump Fumcrade collaboratbd to redesijirp tlpe old rotunda, vhich had Been designed by
Ceoree I. AarncU, Lhe vuildine's third architect.
(See Continuation Sheet, peje 3)
page 236 Appendix D: Copy of Nat rf ma I Register Nomination I'orTO
n'.f- !■ i-il
^MTLL)STAH-SlH.l'\UlMI.M <M (111. LMIlKIUK [Fb'UNPSUBttSHLV
NATION At fAn* ttflVltE
HtCtlWLD
NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES
INVENTORY-- NOMINATION FORM | d*te chimed
CONTINUATION SHCtT ITEMNUhlUEn " fAGt 3
Ulnar desienca the original program and, by l£££ f executed this four lunettes depicting
the history of St, Louis. Gut sequent work by Ettore traced! in l£QO. repairs by
August Decker in lCM and 1905, restoration vara by Jfiu.es Lycns in 1921, and el fire
In 1936 have anliter.itet. all of Wipar'c progS'asi ctcclit tvo of his lunettes. The
majority of the vorH visible today is a national Fork Service restoration of Kirafloli'
nevertheless , bath tveii VCrc 4c tempi iEhcd artists And the rotunda presents an
i^prascivc appearance .
An event of :=uJor political and lcaal important a occurred at the Courthouse in 16*17,
when Deed Scatt sued the widow of Dr. Jclin £aa;rson fcr his freciicm. The trial verdict
VIS rendered in favor of !ii L s» tilers on. Upon appeal, this verdict was set aside end n
second trial wet held in 1850. These first two trials were kcown to have been held
in the Courthouse, Ihe SteXe S upl-ciie Cuurt trial, in 1832, vas probaoly not held in
the Courthouse. The case «ov its conclusion in the decision of th* U.U. Supreme Court
in Drcd Scott v E . Sim ford in iU^T.
,11 sq of note is the Tact, thai Justice Louis Bran ie is vos admitted to the bar in this
court/itjuse in 13'fB.
The eld Cathedral, the second rejroinins historic euildin£ or old St, Louis, van touilt
is lfi21 to lO^li , on land sot aside far religious puryesbs by Finrre Laclede in tha
spring of l"ffj!| vhen he roufidad tlie village of 5L. Louis. The building narrowly
c&oapod destruction ir. the lU 5 as trout firo thw-t swept the riverfront in 1C!|Q, Ttm
importance of the church declined ahai-plj after the Civil tfer when the archdiocese
moved its headquarters Uptown to a neV eat!l?dral. ."iut in l?6l> rope John XX7II
desicna1.cd.tho building "Basilica of St. Louis, King of i-runec," This is the
highest honor ever Given on jWricon Catholic church.
Appendix P; Copy of National Register Nomination Form
page 237
£3 MAJOR BIBLIOGRAPHICAL REFERENCES
Dry on, John A- , An.flrrhii-c et-urfl .I arnl irir-twtca] rhctch of the Old Cnt.K-tlrol .
St. Louis: Jefferson ifaticrui £x$an5lon kcaovial, 1037.
, An Architecture )>r>d Hisl.aHcJt] l^fccl.nii nf l.hn fil.il Courthouse ■
51. Louis: Jefferson Kiitionol E>.punaien McDOrilU., 193,7.
■ . ft ITiysjrcl H ist ory o f 1-hc 01 r|_ Coi »■'■;) hHim , at. Inula, frKr.isnurl , lfL56- IQ?fk
flt. Louis; Jefferson ilalicntii o;fian^it-:i Kenoriil, IS Hi.
ESjGliOCHAPHICAL DATA
JVLtll Af.1 iti HtitMMKtiP PBUPffllT . jQ ■ ^fr
uim JiJ.rEr.iMHi
<0*fC CASTING NUHTHPN(i
dl.il iT pi.sfra.P.ol |l>,i| 7,£|(i r B,o|
VERIlAL UOilNDAHV 0£SCJllt"TION
tl5 Y Ji L 5 !| 2 7 fi £ 7 Q
G1S 7 Ji I) 6 C d 2 ■[ H *
ISuc Uojitinuation £he«t, page
"LL2J Hi''.? I3.Q.0I |t.siT.g|i,T,ft |
LOME EA5TIMI". mOiHHIHS
ris 'f ^ 4 e u -o ii s i 67d o
HIS 7 b It $ o l< 2 T 7 B o
(See Continuation Sheet, pt£o 5)
iisi all si ai is and count it e> ran rnopcmiEs o^UiiAmKoiiAUOfl cgun fY udundaaus
Sl»t(
codi
[CUHIf
tODl
[j£Jf O^ M PREPARED BY
mutt i.i.t
Bich ni*d I. flrtcen, Architectural illr.to r I fir, (Knfi n e gr)
en r,±ui";ii im j u»H
U.S. rintiODtil Pnrk C-rvict, HHHO 3/3/.T6
_^
MNU * UUMWW
.170? Jivcfcson Street
1 , 1 I r- ,. |.i .,
J>r»?-?ji-il,?i
cut on ioivh
Olrtshn
Mill
Hcbr^slr,
EH CERTIFICATION DENOMINATION
5 J ATS HISTOIUCHnnJtnVATION OfUCtn PlEtOMME*DATIOM
**S NO HONE
n»i; ni5io«ic»«isE"v»«piK»"it|j n-mryu
lniufn(ilnn(D «vi 1 1> Cn( v (rvi UicIbi 1 I SBJ, I rurally n»nrun»ig lint piApcnr 1* U« NituMur Rteolci. effl't»iofl irr*L Ijhj 51*1(
H,1,D " i P'mmiliiiD Ulhcar hji burn jlfowtr! DO fliy-i mi whcJk leivcuil lit IWnWnjLign In lh« 5lll« Review Grnrd |Ad 16
mluil* in tigfltr-CtnCf. Tm «v«1ii*litl Irvil oj uyraliunEV n _X._Mi.nnti Sum . Lo*«i. -
FEDERAL REt'RfSf NT A liv r SlfjNflTunt
THIS DATE
urn Nnust only
1 Ncnrnr certify that this rnofnrsrr is inxluPld <h the national ntoisTcn
director, offic* Of auchcolOGy *-ko \u$ i oruc ^LitnvAi iu^
ATTEST,
DATE
KEEPER Of THE NATIONAL HCf.HSTF.fi
Bl
c23ft
Appendix D: Qipy nf National Register Nnminahnn hirm
In bv to JUO»
UK1 1 Ul 4>T A I L!> IH .r A K nil M (II 1 1 IL I M1.H I U K
MAnow*i rant i[fl'/iC€
NATIONAL REGISTER OF 1USTORIC PLACES
INVENTOR V - NOM1 NATION FORM
fOP W5U5I QUIT
IHECEIVtD
D*Tt£MTtHfn
CONII*U*TiONiPitLI
IttU
tace *-
-, The ftlwirfi-gnt m. ~t. loyU: fonr»aT if- the ^Tt . St. Louis: Jerfcrua
nation*! a^aulcM ;<t™iriil, 19*?.
Deicb, Donald, Klitory of tho Old Cowthoufifr . St. Usuis: Jefferson Ftflrari
Expansion liroorml . 19o7.
Appendix D: Copy of National Rj&gistcr Nomination Form
page 239
I.r. <:■ II - .
■0 HP
tiMltUSI-MI.MU I'akimi.M (M nil- IMIJCIUK
TIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES
INVENTORY --NOMINATION FORM
ucctivto
CONTINUATION SUCH
IT[MNUMQEH 10 PAGE 5
Thu T-s.liniwjil pio-t, ulartinc ct the i n tc rwc t i on or Eefis DriSce ud trttiirf Street,
SL r Loud?, Missouri , TVjSP south clone tho Most iislc Of IHnarf 5 tract for iipLTOiinaLcIy
3000 feet; thence west along the north ciJc or Poplar Strict i<*r appro* inatuiy flarj
feet; thence north along the cast ilac of the Third Strict, ti*t»~c::5v.iy ror opprtaii.-
uatcly lt)0D feet; thence West alon£ liu-ket 5tjreul appr oxi bcI-c JLy GOO fuct; thence
north alojiE BroiLcVtjf s.pproKi r,at ely 300 foot; then etut alone Chestnut inproidaately
800 f*ctj tlicnue north olor.,, tht Hz pr Ci SwoJ" apn roxi na tcly I^GQ reel; Ihenec ccjit
alone tJie toutii «oll of Eads Britl^c E.pjjroj>imatcJy 300 feet to the be^innine.
THIS PAGE LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK
Live Music
Archive
Librivox
Free Audio
Metropolitan Museum
Cleveland
Museum of Art
Internet
Arcade
Console Living Room
Open Library
American
Libraries
TV News
Understanding
9/11